Tuesday, December 28, 2010

We the Taxpayers

What would happen if all the homeowners on Longboat Key formed a political pressure group? Let's say we call it Longboat Key Home Owners or LKHO, which might be pronounced much like the Spanish word for crazy "loco", and perhaps it is an unusual notion. However, how would such an organization alter the political landscape on Longboat Key?

LKHO would be the largest special interest group on the island by far. PIC has only a few members now, many of whom are involved with real estate, which is often reflected in PIC support of development on the island that would have been anathema to PIC members a decade ago.

LKHO would represent all property owners and give a voice to non-resident taxpayers that has never been available to them before.

LKHO could clearly define the interests of island property owners with a strong single voice. LKHO members could be effectively polled to ascertain views on tourist development, beach management, vision plan content, revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, development of the town's public lands such as Island Park and Quick Point and a host of other community functions.

LKHO could have an elected representative attending commission meetings and conveying LKHO's positions of various vital commission decisions. This representative would carry a big stick being the representative of a large majority of the community's taxpayers.

Currently the town is run by a town manager and a commission that is mainly composed of appointed or unopposed residents. Perhaps in a more vital political environment the commission might be more responsive to home owners. What I see presently is a great deal of commission discussion about how to fiddle with our long-standing land use codes to provide a way for the developers to expand their operations on Longboat without ending up on the losing side of court decisions. My idea of forming a homeowners political pressure group would force the current developer oriented commission to include all property owners in their discussions.

LKHO, if it came into being, would be a strong voice for those non-resident taxpayers who are presently disenfranchised. I can not see any other means of exerting force on the town government to become strong advocates of non-resident taxpayers. I see absolutely no discussion from the commissioners about the plight of homeowners and non-resident taxpayers. Instead of tightening the town's fiscal belt, the commissioners raised taxes at a time of almost universal economic distress and a devastating decline in home values.

Now the town wants to embark on a $50+ million beach renourishment program that many feel is unneeded and unwarranted. The $50+ will go directly to the bottom line on your taxes. Right behind that is the pension plan conundrum that has been kicked down the road for years by a commission that has never been able to get a clear understanding of what is at stake. What is at stake is a $30+ million ad velorum bond that will increase real estate taxes even more. When a town government encumbers its constituents with excessive taxes, the cost of living in that community becomes more expensive and less attractive to perspective home buyers.

LKHO may seem a bit crazy to some. To others it will be crazy like a fox. I believe it is time for our property owners to unit and become an effective part of the political process. If  you are tired of not having a voice in Longboat government, property tax increases and seemingly endless expensive bond referendums, you might think about becoming a little bit LKHO yourself.

If you feel that having a homeowner oriented political pressure group similar to LKHO is a good idea, add your comments to this article, talk to your neighbors. If enough homeowners express an interest in forming an organization them perhaps it will happen. I believe such a group would be good for our community.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Dancing in the Dark

I have looked at Longboat Key's town manager form of government and the strong mayor form of government that exists on Anna Maria Island. Certainly neither form of government is perfect and each has its challenges. However, I do see some important differences and perhaps some advantages to the strong mayor form of government.

One of the three planks in my campaign for commissioner centered on the inability of our commissioners to always make truly informed decisions. When it comes to the large and complex, and often the most expensive issues, the commission too often operates as a rubber stamp for the programs and policies of the town manager. I am not slighting our town manager as I have always found him to be a consummate professional with considerable political aplomb. I see the problem as a flaw in an unpaid commission where no one runs for office, and the inability of the commission to learn about and grasp the subtleties often inherent in large programs such as beach management or reclaimed waster. In the case of reclaimed water, the taxpayers spent over $3 million for little more than two bottles of water. The reclaimed water project was complex and relied on the advice of a single contractor with much to be gained from the project. Perhaps if the town had sought the advice of other experts in the field, the taxpayers would not have wasted $3+ million.

The Longboat Key beach management issue once again demonstrates that the commissioners are called upon to make decisions about technical matters they clearly did not understand. The town manager brought in two "experts" to educate the commission about alternative technologies for maintaining beaches. At the end of the day the commissioners were forced to accept the town manager's position, that there are no alternatives to sand dredging, since the commissioners had nowhere near enough knowledge about the subject to form their own informed opinions. I feel this occurs too often. Yet what can be done about the situation when we are lucky not to have to appoint commissioners when a commission seat goes unwanted.

In the process of convincing the commission that there are no possible alternatives to dredging, the town managed managed to sidestep the question of why he wants to advance the scheduled beach project. Again I do not believe all the commissioners were even aware that advancing the beach project may be more costly in the long-run than remaining on schedule. It appears the town manager was able to substitute alternatives as the criteria for advancing the beach project, instead of discussing financial costs, needs or long-range fiscal planning.

The Anna Maria Island communities have strong mayor governments with no town manager. In those communities each member of the commission is personally responsible for some aspect of the town's operations, whether it be finance or water/sewer or beach maintenance or some other department. The Anna Maria form of government requires commissioners to have personal knowledge and experience as a required part of their job description. On Longboat the commissioners do not have to do or know anything. Yet we ask them to make decisions that often have large consequences and high price-tags.

Last week the commissioners decided to advance the next $54 million beach dredging one year. I do not believe that all the commissioners were cognizant of the financial ramifications of their decisions, yet they were asked to decide anyway. I also saw the commissioners agree that there are no alternatives to dredging after listening to the town manager's experts. Yet I felt that few of the commissioners had any real background or knowledge about alternative beach maintenance technologies, even the ones that have existed on Longboat for over a decade, as was pointed out by former mayor Brown in his column this week.

I believe there might have been a different discussion on Anna Maria where at least one of the commissioners would have been intimately involved with beach maintenance as a part of his day-to-day duties in a strong mayor form of government.

I am not the only columnist to have written about the apparent weaknesses in our town manager form of government, in these times of fiscal stress and evermore technically complex problems to be solved.

Since there is little chance that we will transform our government, I am proposing, once again, that the commission retain its own consultants and expert advisers, as needed, as a counterpoint to the town manager's agenda and "Golden Rolodex" of consultants.

We cannot afford to make mistakes.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Too Far Horizons


This past week three individuals either emailed or called me after reading my column in the LBK News advocating immediate rejuvenation of our user-friendly community quotient. In the column I said that the village was a wonderful place to live with lots of social activities and welcoming neighbors.

Dennis from Ohio is 71 and stays at the Far Horizons a month every winter. He is now ready to retire and is looking for a place to live. After reading my column Dennis called me to ask about houses for sale in the village at the north end of Longboat. During our conversation he expressed agreement with my statements that when he visits Longboat he feels isolated and lonely as there are no apparent ways to meet people outside the small group of fellow tourists staying at the resort. Dennis wishes there were things to do on Longboat that would enable him to enjoy the company of others. At the end of our conversation Dennis said that he is now actively looking for a home in the village expressly because of the sense of community that exists within the village.

Bill and Anne emailed from Rye New York. They also read my blog which turned up on a Google search about retirement communities in Florida. Bill and Anne subsequently called after I returned their email. Bill and Anne found exactly what they were looking for in my description of the rich social interaction that thrives in the village. They inquired about specific social activities in the community and about being dog-friendly. I told them about dog-thirty which occurs at 5:30 each afternoon where all the dogs bring their humans to play and socialize. Since then I have received two more phones calls asking about specific houses in the village that are for sale. I have referred them to a real estate agent familiar with the village.

All three of these people are ready to move here now and they want to live where there are things to do with others. This is far different than the model being advanced in the new vision plan where tourism is touted as the essential element in the financial wellbeing of Longboat Key. Where in fact the very model being advanced in the new vision plan would drive away the three people I have been talking about. They do not want to live in a motel. They want to find a welcoming community where people do things together. Tourist do not do things with residents.

Dennis and Bill and Anne are ready to buy homes today and become residents of Longboat Key today. The plan being put forth in the vision plan targets affluent tourists in their 40s and 50s as future home buyers. Unless they can find high paying jobs in the area, it will be decades before they get here. Dennis, Anne and Bill are here today with their checkbooks in hand.

I agree that we need to be looking ahead and cultivating future residents in all our marketing. But the vision plan is a Too Far Horizon for today and our community’s immediate and short-range plans and needs. When real estate agents market our island to perspective home buyers today, they should be able to brag about all the wonderful things to do on Longboat, and all the friendly neighbors they will get to know.

The vision plan looks too far into the future to be of any real use in today’s economics and community aspirations. Ask yourself how many years you think it will be before some brave developer builds a motel or hotel on Longboat Key. Ask yourself if you would relocate into a community with markedly more tourism and tourism related businesses. Ask yourself if you would like to see significantly more people on the beach, on the road and in our restaurants. Ask yourself if you would prefer to see people moving to Longboat in the very near future, or wait until the tourist based vision plan finds investors willing to build new motels or open new stores to the extent that Longboat is a tourist attraction, and then wait another twenty years for the tourist's kids to leave home.

I believe the proposed vision plan relies too heavily on horizons too far distant into an unpredictable financial future. I feel we need to find ways to attract residents to our community right now. To me the best way to do that is to show Dennis, Anne and Bill that Longboat is a friendly community with many community oriented activities that promote friendship and meeting new people. Dennis, Anne and Bill already think that Eldorado is to be found in the village at the north end of Longboat Key. We welcome them.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Clouds Over Longboat Beaches

Last Monday's commission meeting turned into a lengthy forum on the town manager's proposed $56 million beach project that has the town manager recommending that the scheduled beach renourishment be moved forward a full year. Once again I state that I object to the town using the face value of bonds as opposed to the figure that appears on our tax statements which is the bond value plus interest. The bond value is in the vicinity of $45 million.

I spoke to the commission and the gist of my statements appears below followed by the town manager's rebuttal of my claims. This column represents a new paradigm in our community government in that I can now respond to the town manager's enviable position of always getting the last word. So please read to the end, because I believe you will enjoy the new and I feel improved process of governance.

Here are my comments to the commission on Monday evening:


Initial Bond $45 million

Minus $7 million for a north end jetty.

$45 million bond minus $7 million for the jetty leaves $38 million as the projected cost for sand.

Interest on $38 million sand bond at 3% for 8 years = $9.12 million.

The true cost of the project is $38 million plus interest of $9 million = $47 million.

$47 million is what appears on our taxes.

The town manager has stated that 1.2 million yards of sand will be required.

$47 million divided by 1.2 million yards of sand equals $39 dollars a yard for sand.

At $39 per yard the most we could expect to be reimbursed from Port Dolphin would be 128 thousand yards of sand. That is 1/10th the amount being used for the proposed sand renourishment. If Port Dolphin pays us money, the cap is set at $5 million which is linked to our costs for removing the sand from the Port Dolphin right-of-way. There are absolutely no guarantees the town will get a nickel from Port Dolphin.

If the beach project is advanced a year the taxpayers will lose a full year of amortization on the previous beach bond which is approximately $660.000. In addition the taxpayers will have to start paying $1.3 million annually on a new beach bond a year early. I am not even including any discussion of possibly far less costly beach maintenance technologies that will not be examined if the beach project is advanced a year.

Is Port Dolphin worth advancing the project with all the extra costs involved?

The total cost for both the sand and the jetty is $45 mil + 3% interest for 8 years equals $10.8 mil, for a grand total of $55.8 million added to our resident’s taxes.

I include here a lower cost projection in an attempt to show that even at a lower coast project that the financials still do not make sense to me.

Low end sand only estimate: $32 mil for sand bond / $7.7 mil for interest / $40 mil total / 40 divided by 1.2 = $33 per yard / 151 thousand yards reimbursed from Port Dolphin – still not worth it.

If we are going to pay between $33 and $39 a yard for sand that will be half gone in two years, I believe we need to research alternatives first. $33 - 39 a yard is simply too much to do otherwise.

Below are my responses to the three statements made by the town manager to refute the above statements.


1) The town mnager stated that each year we lose 250,000 cubic yards of our beach sand. I am assuming that is what he is saying when he stated that there is yearly loss of $4 million worth of sand from an initial renourishment of 1.8 million yards. 1.8 divided by 8 = 225,000. From what I have read and what has been stated by CP&E, there is an initial accelerated equilibrating process that occurs in the first two to three years where approximately 50% of the dry beach profile is redistributed as the beach profile approaches equilibrium.

“The time scale for profile equilibration has been examined for several projects and it has been found that the project will stabilize to one-half the equilibrium adjustment in approximately 2 to 3 years.”…NOAA quote.

The rate of sand loss in a perfect system (no storms) then decreases logarithmically each year as the dry beach comes closer to equilibrium with the greater shore profile. This would indicate that sand loss in the final year would not be 1/8th of the whole, as the town manager stated, but much less. I disagree with the town manager's assertion that waiting a year would cost an additional $4 million dollars. I do not believe the taxpayers come out ahead by early termination of the current beach project.

Sand Loss Graph: (note logarithmic loss curve - less and less sand lost over time)
2) The proposed north end jetty: The town manager rebutted that not advancing the beach project would leave no sand in the north end system for the proposed jetty, and that a jetty needs sand in the system because jetties do not produce sand. I wish to say I do not agree with that statement. Jetties are expressly designed to keep sand out of a system, in this case out of Longboat Pass. I do not believe we need to worry about not enough sand reaching the jetty. Rather we need to hope that not too much sand escapes the jetty, and is lost into Longboat Pass, which is the whole rational for a jetty in the first place. Jetties are designed to retard the loss of shore sand into an inlet.

I believe the town manager has stated on several occasions that 50,000+ yards of sand are lost annually into Longboat Pass off just the most northern two thousand feet of Longboat. Without an accurate measurement of the sand crossing the inlet from Anna Maria onto Longboat, we have no way of predicting how much additional sand will pile up against the jetty. In short I cannot agree that waiting a year will in any way adversely affect the intended function of the proposed jetty.

3) The town manager's third assertion, that it will cost more for sand if we wait a year, is a more complex issue and one that has never been broached before. If one follows his reasoning we should terminate every beach project early to save money. I am reminded of Zeno’s Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. Accelerating a beach project also accelerates the need for the next beach project, and so-on. It is a zero-sum game. Since our sand costs have risen exponentially from project to project, I find it difficult to believe that any new sand will be less expensive than sand from a previous project.

I still maintain that there are adverse financial consequences for advancing the beach project and a total lack of any assured benefits.

Termination of the current beach project a year early adds $660,000 to the existing bond amortization schedule.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

To Advance or Not to Advance


One cost of advancing the Longboat Key beach project to 2011 from the scheduled year 2012, on a $45 million bond at 3%, is $1.3 million in yearly interest on the bond a year early.

So far the town manager’s sole reason for advancing the project is the Port Dolphin sand and the possible loss of up to $5 million in payments from the pipeline company, if Port Dolphin decides to construct the pipeline.

The following considerations should be part of the cost/benefit analysis of advancing the project one year.

1. The taxpayers will receive one less year of value for the current $26 million bond or $660,000.

2. The taxpayers will have one fewer years when they are not paying for a beach bond.

3. The taxpayers will pay $1.35 million dollars interest on the new bond one year early

4. Exactly how many cu/yds of sand from the Port Dolphin borrow-sites will be used on the proposed beach project? We should know this.

5. Is there a sand transportation differential between the sand coming from the north end of Anna Maria Island and the sand coming from the more distant Port Dolphin borrow-sites?

6. How is the town reimbursed by Port Dolphin, by the yard or as a lump sum? The town manager has stated that the town may receive up to $5 million so I expect there is some sort of yard/dollar formula.

7. The beach consultants say 2 of 5 sections of the beach on Longboat Key will receive the darker courser Port Dolphin sand. If the total project is 1.8 million yards of sand, then perhaps approximately 2/5ths of that amount will be taken from the Port Dolphin sites or 720,000 yards of sand.

8. By advancing the project by 1 year, to receive possible compensation form Port Dolphin, each yard of the 720,000 yards from Port Dolphin will have an added cost of $1.80 to cover the added early interest on the $45 million bond.

9. I estimate that the town has already spent over $500,000 fighting the Port Dolphin pipeline, so there is another $1.40 added on to the cost of each yard of sand coming from the Port Dolphin sites. These are only approximations and are not represented as actual amounts. However, we should know the actual figures before we move forward.

If the Port Dolphin sand does have hidden costs in the range of $3.20 per yard, is it worth advancing the beach project one year, even if we do recive some money from the pipeline company? Remember we will be getting one less year of life from the current beach bond which makes that taxpayer transaction 14% more costly, while at the same advancing payments on the next beach bond by one year.

The Longboat Pass inlet management study may produce findings that preclude needing as much sand as projected in the currently proposed beach project. Why encumber the residents with additional taxes that may not be required after the completion of the inlet study.

The interim sand placement at the north end alleviates the necessity to act this year as all the other beaches are performing on schedule for the original 2012 beach project.

If Port Dolphin is the sole reason being advanced as the driving factor in advancing the beach project by a year, I say we should know a lot more about what we will actually receive from Port Dolphin and then run a cost/benefit analysis. Uninformed decision-making usually has its problems.

The town and the taxpayers might save a lot of money if an alternative beach maintenance technology is evaluated and found to be effective in acquiring sand, at no cost through accretion, and then retaining the sand for extended periods of time.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

All Together Now

The median age of Longboat Key residents is 68. We are an upscale residential community composed  for the most part, of retirees, many of whom spend only a few weeks a year on the island. Whether we like it or not that is our major demographic, and we as a community must deal with what we are.

I read a comment in one of the newspapers some time ago that used the term "Deadboat Key". I have spoken to several real estate sales people who have said that younger home buyers do not want to live on Longboat because it is "unfriendly" and there is nothing to do. Is that true?

I live in the village. Here, the residents are out and about in the neighborhood. It is a friendly welcoming enclave of modest homes. Every month we have a village get-together and potluck dinner. Anyone is welcome. The village has several activity groups and a lively social network. I have lived in the village over 25 years and it is the best place I have ever lived. Most of my friends and neighbors share my appreciation for the kicked-back friendly intimate lifestyle we enjoy.

I believe Longboat needs to become more user-friendly. Even though some people do not want our island to be known as a community of affluent retired people, that is what we are if you look at our population.

I have always supported the tennis center because I believe it enriches the lives of hundreds of our residents and offers a popular social activity to visitors and perspective home buyers.

Even though tennis is a good physical activity, along with golf and of course swimming in the beautiful gulf, many of our residents may be interested in less strenuous activities such as Bocce Ball and other outdoor activities requiring less stamina than tennis. Our climate may discourage many residents from participating in the more active social activities such as golf or tennis much of the year. Perhaps a few town Bocce Ball and shuffleboard courts with shaded seating might allow residents to get out more and find social interactions year-round.

I want to promote many more community activities that draw the residents together, provide more social activity choices and improve our image as a great place to live and buy a home.

The town has an infrastructure fund with proceeds from the tourism taxes collected by the counties. Perhaps a small portion of those funds might be used to create and promote social activities on Longboat to be enjoyed by all. Other communities such as "The Villages", an upscale planned retirement community on central Florida, have a robust social activities infrastructure that is well attended and supported by the residents.

Here are a few ideas I have that might be worth examining:




Bocce Ball courts can add utility to our existing parks at relatively little cost. Shaded seating affords residents the opportunity to exercise and meet other island residents in relative comfort year-round. Perhaps the town could organize league play and even an invitational tournament that would attract off-island players to our island as the triathlon drew hundreds of contestants to Longboat for a day.

I have a friend who moved from Longboat to "The Villages" several years ago, and is still happy with their decision. My friend loves all the community social activities that are available. Weekly dances in the village squares are very popular as are outdoor activities. We have ample room in one of our parks to install an outdoor dance floor with appropriate LED lighting. Add a DJ and you have a starlit evening to enjoy.

Longboat has no centralized organization to promote and manage community activities. Perhaps we need one. It is a lot of effort for our residents to sponsor activities which tend to be restricted to a particular condominium association or neighborhood. Perhaps we might all enjoy more community-wide activities. The St. Jude's luncheon and various other fundraising functions are always well supported.

If the town managed weekly potluck dinners in the park then they would be able to manage attendence each week. If the town installed numbers of shaded outdoor picnic tables and benches in the public areas, perhaps more people would organize activities in the parks. With a median age of 68, I doubt that many of our residents want to have to stand in the hot sun to be a part of an otherwise enjoyable community social gathering.


I believe our community needs to find more ways to come together and to offer an expanded living experience to residents and visitors alike. Perhaps local government is the most able to create and organize community resources in an intentional effort to grow our community.

We need to be a part of the competition to attract the baby boomers to Longboat. The current retiring generation has different asperations than the people who built our community a generation ago. The boomer's aspirations are more active, and if one looks at "The Villages" they want an increased sense of community.

We can easily increase social interaction on Longboat in a number of ways. Certainly a community center will be a major asset in attracting new residents. In the meantime, there are many other activities that can be organized.

Perhaps the vision plan might address community activities more and pay less attention to the tourists.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Managing our beaches intelligently

In this blog I will link to two beach maintenance technologies that might be explored to maintain sand on our beaches at minimum cost and maximum longevity, instead of hopper dredging that lasts only a few years.

In my previous post I stated that the town might serve the community well by researching what beach management alternatives are available, and how they might be applied to our particular beach challenges.

I believe it is essential to look at preserving sand along our entire 10 miles of beach, not just the beach adjacent to Longboat Pass.

For the past 20 years I have always tried to offer positive alternatives if I questioned a particular town policy of activity. The current beach conundrum is no different and here I am suggesting that we look at two specific beach maintenance technologies because they make sense to me. I have looked into both companies enough to believe that each has promise. Both systems can be economically applied to the entire island to provide a semi-permanent solution that does not require spending tens-of-millions of dollars every 8 years or so.

In the case of the Sand Saver company, they are willing to ship 20 of their units to Longboat, at no cost to the town, so we might conduct a small test lasting for a month or two as proof of concept. Since the Sand Saver units are highly portable and quickly and easily removed, the town can assure the Department of Environmental Resources that the test will cause no permanent damage to the coastline. I like companies that believe enough in their technology to fully underweight the pilot project.


As soon as ideas for a long term low maintenance beach solution are presented, I suspect there will be opposition from several quarters. I can see no reason why these technologies should not be explored to the point where a consensus of experts reject them. Ask yourselves if you believe all the communities that decided to use these various beach maintenance methods acted impulsively and without evaluating what they were doing. In the past the town manager has defended his continued use of hopper dredging by saying that all other technologies will not work on Longboat Key. My question is how do we know this without throughly exploring the promising technologies and how they apply to our particular beach conditions.

Are we the only ones who know what we are doing? Is there nothing to be learned from the efforts and collective experiences of other communities? Do you really want to reject all seemingly successful technologies out-of-hand? I don't when $50 million is on the line with a life expectancy of only seven or eight years, and even higher costs the next time we re-nourish our beaches.

The Movable Wall: The first technology I want to highlight is called "Sand Saver". This beach maintenance technology uses movable semi-porous retaining wall modules to build beach profile and then maintain the built-out beach on an ongoing basis. The semi-porous units can be repositioned up and down the island to both acquire sand and to maintain the beach. Please watch the entire video and note how quickly sand is acquired using the Sand Saver modules.


At this point I am not saying that the Sand Saver is the answer to all our dreams. I am saying we should, as a community, honestly evaluate this technology, and others, both in terms of cost and effectiveness. The Sand Saver has never been permitted since the 1970s. Many of the technologies being proposed for examination have to deal with a $3 billion a year dredging industry along with its attendant lobbyists. Sand Saver has recently obtained all required permits for a project on the Great Lakes in Michigan. When this technology was permitted it was successful in accretion 100 feet of beach in a few weeks.

Link: http://www.sandsaver.com/main.wmv

Link: http://www.sandsaver.com/




Sub-current Stabilizers: Holmberg Technology is a local company has been reclaiming beaches for decades around the world. They have hundreds of satisfied clients. Holmberg has hundreds of success stories of reclaimed beaches that have lasted decades without needing further work and money. I have spoken with Mr. Holmberg and for a few thousand dollars we can have Mr. Holmberg evaluate our beaches and make a preliminary proposal.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA7D8UERl6A&feature=related

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBTroxOvczc&feature=related

I have presented two differing beach maintenance technologies. Both have been successful in other communities. There are many more alternatives to the expensive temporary dredging solution being championed by both the town manager and the town's beach engineering consultants. Look at my LBK beaches web site to see several other shore maintenance technologies that are in use around the world.

Link: http://www.lbkbeaches.com/

I do not believe we should continue to support expensive dredging projects without first having a disinterested independent expert beach management company evaluate the major alternative beach management technologies that have been successful in other communities.




Thursday, November 18, 2010

Sandcastles In The Air


What are informed decisions? What are uninformed decisions?
What role does foresight play in our decision making?
The taxpayers of Longboat Key will soon be asked to once again approve a beach bond in the vicinity of $50 million to replenish ten miles of beach. I am reminded of George Santayana's admonition "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." If today's commission proceedings are any indication of the commissioners final decision concerning the scope of work on the island's shoreline, we are doomed to throwing an enormous amount of money into the Gulf of Mexico, again.

To view some of the erosion control solutions employed by other communities look at the link below.

http://www.lbkbeaches.com/


I honestly believe that any decision to repeat a process that has been shown to be temporary and increasingly costly is an uninformed decision if no attempt is made to seriously examine as many viable alternatives as possible.

I also believe that waiting until the last possible moment, when the town is between the devil and the deep blue sea, does not lead to a successful informed decision making process.

At the previous commission workshop, the town's beach consultants appeared to be ill-prepared at such a late date. They had no innovative and cost saving suggestions for the commission to consider. When commissioner Larson brought up the idea of geotex tubes as a means of retaining expensive sand, the consultants appeared to be caught off guard and had no immediate answers. One would think for what we pay the consultants, that they would have come to the deadline meetings with more than "the same old same old".


I believe the time has come, and the costs high enough, for the town commission to finally approach our beach problem with true due diligence. We need to seek solutions from more sources than just our current beach management consultants. If one takes the time and does the research it becomes apparent that communities use many different methods to control the costs of maintaining their beaches. If money were of no concern, then our present policy of replenishing our beaches ever seven or eight years might be the easiest approach. However, money is a concern and we need to attempt to find a permanent solution if one exists.

Informed decision making will require a great effort for an unpaid commission. It will also require that the commission instruct the town manager to bring in other coastal engineering companies from around the country and around the world if necessary. The projected cost of the upcoming beach project is $50,000,000.00 plus when interest is added to the $40,000,000.00 bond issue. That works out to over $5,000,000.00 a mile for sand replenishment that has been proven again and again to last only a few years.


False Economies: eventually taxpayers will tire of geometrically escalating beach management costs and insist that a permanent solution be found. As sand borrow areas become more difficult to find and competition for limited sand resources increases, so will the costs associated with our present sand replenishment policy.

The town commission can choose to remain passive and accept the advice of the town's beach consultants, or they can insist on input from a number of qualified engineering companies. I suspect that there will be no real effort to evaluate the many proven methods for erosion management used by communities around the world. Instead, and as usual, the commission will be willing accept the choices offered by our beach consultants, even in the face of launching the largest bond referendum in the history of Longboat Key.


The pending beach management project includes provisions for some sort of sand retaining structures at the north end to slow the loss of sand into Longboat Pass, depending on the outcome of an inlet management study. Inlets account for 86% of sand loss off our beaches.

Since the town has refrained from conducting a north end inlet management study for many years, until such a study was mandated by the state last year, the taxpayers of Longboat Key will be asked to "trust" the town to do the right thing, since the sorts of structures to be used at the north end may be undefined at the time of the bond referendum.

This week the town's beach consultants told the commissioners that they had stabilized Longboat's beaches with the exception of Longboat Pass and that sand replenishment was a prudent approach to maintaining the beach profile.


At the same time the consultants detailed the amount of yearly sand loss from the various sectors of the beach in terms of hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of sand. The stabilized beach they spoke of is still losing sand at a prodigious rate in terms of dollars that will soon be required to replenish that sand again.


I believe we need to explore means of keeping sand on the beach through the use of various technologies.


If the commission chooses poorly then some poor commissioners and many property owners will be faced with an even more enormous financial problem a scant ten years from now.



We cannot afford to continue throwing tax dollars into the Gulf of Mexico every few years if there is some way to retain the sand more effectively.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

What's Wrong with Tourists?

Should we label tourists as second-class economic citizens on Longboat Key?


What do tourists bring to our community?

Recent studies have demonstrated that residents and tourists do not mix well. In communities where commercial tourism has expanded, residents most often relinquish territory to the tourists. On Longboat the tourist influx during February and March means crowded roads and restaurants. Residents know better and do not plan trips off-island on weekends when the beaches are filling up or tourists are heading home. We prepare ourselves for long waits at local eateries during season while mumbling about the need for tourism to keep local businesses alive. We modify our life style because of the tourists yet we are the ones who pay all the taxes. Does that make sense?


Do tourists keep our businesses alive? Probably not the same businesses needed by residents such as medical, lawn, municipal, home repair or domestic services. While residents have little need for tee-shirt shops, shell stores or jet-ski rentals. There seems to be very little that tourists and residents have in common except being on the same road at the same time two months a year. 


The residential community realizes almost no financial benefit from commercial tourism except for a small portion of collected sales taxes and real estate taxes which represent a small fraction of the total tax burden.

A few property owners rent their houses, mostly on a monthly basis, with mixed reactions form neighboring homes. The chamber of commerce along with some current commissioner/planners now advocate relaxing the monthly rental restrictions and allowing weekly rentals to encourage more tourists to come to Longboat by offering reduced cost accommodations. We all know that weekly rentals quickly deteriorate into weekend rentals. There are no controls as to how many people can occupy a house. A property owner near me rents to different people for weekends on a weekly basis even though it is illegal. Sometimes there are eight or more people occupying the house including boisterous young children. Our town continues to demonstrate that it is not prepared to effectively regulate residential rentals, nor should it, for the town is not be in the vacational rental business. The weekend rentals continue island-wide, though the economic downturn appears to have reduced rental traffic.

I do not believe that the great majority of our island residents even want monthly rentals much less weekly/weekend rentals. Yet the current pro-business commission appears to be on the verge of approving a vision plan that encourages weekly/weekend rentals. Of course, our chamber of commerce also seeks increased tourism and relaxation of the current thirty day rental restrictions.

If you own a home in a neighborhood where rentals are allowed, and you do not want your neighborhood to be turned into a short-term rental community, then I suggest that you log onto http://www.longboatkey.org/ go to the commissioner's page and email them how you feel about weekly rentals on Longboat Key.

Lastly I want to bust the myth that young Yuppie tourists will become future home buyers on Longboat Key, and that is why we should want hoards of them to be visited upon our beautiful serene residential community. By the time these people are old enough to want to retire to our island, I will most likely be beyond caring and my heirs will also be too old to care.

I believe we should be marketing our island to the retiring baby boomers, not weekly tourists. As soon as the economy recovers we will be looking at a large population of retirees. The more fortunate of those retirees will want just what we wanted when we bought our homes on Longboat Key. Who wants to wait twenty years for the Yuppies to grow up and retire, when there are so many perspective home buyers much closer at hand?

We do not need more tourists. We need discriminating home buyers right now. The best way to attract these people is through sophisticated marketing and advertising.

We do need to spruce up our act, put on a big smile, invent all sorts of things to do as a community and tell the world that we are a wonderful place to live. Did I hear tourist in any of this?

"What our commissioners fail to understand is that the community, not the developers, should define community identity. That is the purpose of the zoning code. Variances should be the exception and not the rule." ... SH 




Sunday, October 31, 2010

Longboat's Looming $54 Million Gift to the Gulf



Let me be perfectly clear. I am 100% committed to maintaining our beautiful beaches. I believe they are key to the value of our homes and attracting tourists.

For the past 10 years my problem has been how we maintain our beaches. I have never agreed with the town manager's unwavering approach to expensive dredging projects while rejecting examination of possible alternatives suggested by numerous coastal engineering and technology companies. My question has always been how do we know what is available if we never ask. In the past the town manager has responded to this question by saying we do receive professional advice from the coastal engineering consultant the town has retained for over a decade, and that the town's consulting firm continues to advocate sand replenishment on a periodic basis.

"In 2008, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 1427, known as the beach management bill, which contained an Inlet Management Initiative that strengthens DEP’s ability to manage sediment around the more than 60 navigational inlets located throughout the state. These inlets, which interrupt the natural flow of sand along beaches, account for more than eighty percent of Florida’s coastal erosion" - NOAA quote. Knowing this, for the past several years my question has been, why not farm the inlets on a regular basis and return the sand to the beaches from whence it came?

The town manager has asserted for the last decade that inlet management is not feasible on Longboat Key, and that dredging from more and more distant underwater sand deposits is our only viable solution. After the passage of HB 1427, the town manager finally initiated an inlet management study of Longboat Pass. I do not feel comfortable with the town manager's decision to hire the same coastal engineering company to do the inlet management study that the town uses for its sand replenishment programs. It seems reasonable and logical to seek new fresh ideas from several qualified sources.

The town manager also rejected a recently completed comprehensive Humiston & Moore study of Longboat Pass even though the H & M work had previously been funded and approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the West Coast Inland Navigation District (WCIND) and the the Army Corps of Engineers in Jacksonville.


Commissioner Brenner has recently expressed his own concerns regarding our present beach management program, where half the deposited sand washes into the Gulf in the first two years "by design", followed by incremental losses in following years, until our beaches reach a depleted state and we do it all over again.

The truth of the matter is that many communities use many different means of controlling beach erosion. Coastal engineering appears to be an inexact science beset with constantly changing conditions and events. Still the time may have arrived when we need to look outside the box at what other communities are doing that works, and to see if their solutions are applicable to our island.

Further I want to know why we need to be looking at a beach bond referendum this year. If Port Dolphin has not indicated if and when they will begin their project, are we still obligated to remove sand from the impacted borrow areas by a certain date or is that date predicated on the commencement of the actual Port Dolphin project?

Second, exactly how many cubic yards of sand will be used from the Port Dolphin borrow sites in the proposed 2011 beach project, given the darker color of the sand from the Port Dolphin borrow sites? Is the town reimbursed on a yard-by-yard basis, and if so, how much money are we actually talking about coming from Port Dolphin, if they do decide to build the pipeline? What does the town get if Port Dolphin does not commence work until after our beach project is complete? Is the Port Dolphin sand the best choice at the least cost if the Port Dolphin project fails to materialize?

If we do not really need to replenish the beaches in 2011and the north end danger is alleviated by the current project to add some sand to the north end beaches, might this not be a good time to pause and take another look at how we manage our beaches and postpone the bond question to 2012 when it was originally scheduled?

I hope we ask for opinions from a number of experts and look to see what is working for other communities.

In case you are wondering about the $54 million figure in the headline, I have always disagreed with the town's way of defining public debt (i.e. bond cost). The town never uses the true debt cost, which is the bond amount plus the interest on the bond. In the latest $40 million beach management bond proposal, the actual levy against the properties of Longboat Key is approximately $54 million. That is the amount that will be added to your yearly real estate taxes for the next decade.



Friday, October 15, 2010

Be a Booster for Beautiful Longboat


This week's Observer listed a 2009 - 2010 September home sales decline of around 45% for condominiums and 65% for houses.

Perhaps a little less gloom and doom by commissioners Brenner and Brown might be advisable given the negative September sales trends on the island.

I do not see that negative public assessments of our island will contribute to real estate sales

In a previous blog, and article in the LBK News, I argued that our community needs immediate help in the area of real estate sales, as opposed to the cure being proposed by Messrs Brenner and Brown, who advocate a long-range build-up of tourist lodging to the point where  retail stores will flourish. Who knows how long that will take given our economy.
http://lbk-folk.blogspot.com/2010/09/longboat-needs-great-marketing-campaign.html

I have been on this island since 1979 either as a visitor or resident. I never saw retail flourish. Demographics have changed over the years and the business environment has morphed into one that fills the current demand for goods and services.

It is all well and good to discuss long-range development on Longboat. However, given the current and projected economic conditions, along with the demise of the baby-boomer 401Ks, it may be more effective to look at more immediate ways to attract home buyers to Longboat.

I suspect most residents are not concerned with the distant in the future profits that will be made by developers if they are allowed to build hi-rise hotels on the north end of Longboat.

Residents need help today not a decade from now.

Every time a read another article about Messrs. Brenner and Brown, telling us we are a decrepit aging declining community, I feel sad that the very people who should be our most outspoken promoters appear to be our most prominent detractors.

These two gentlemen may be the best planners to ever grace our community, but I believe they may not fully comprehend what it is about Longboat that makes us one of the premier residential and retirement communities in America. Perhaps it is their urban background that contributes to their future vision of Longboat as a built-up tourist based economy.

I believe we attract discriminating residents because we are not a tourist based community.

I grew up in Larchmont New York. Elisabeth and I visited friends there in August. As far as I can tell very little has changed in the past sixty years. All the homes are at least eighty to ninety years old. The commercial area is small, ragtag and typically suburban New York. Retail have not expanded appreciably over many decades yet Larchmont homes are outragously expensive for what they are.

Larchmont appears to be prospering and filled with the young families that Brenner and Brown think we should be attracting. Believe me when I tell you there is a lot of money in Larchmont.

There are few tourist establishment in the Larchmont, yet the community prospers.


Having worked with New York State schools for a decade, I can attest that Larchmont has some of the top ranked schools in America. Why would an educated professional family move their children to Longboat Key, when our local schools rank poorly? Improve our local schools and I believe the affluent families will come.

Elisabeth and I recently entertained friends from Evanston, Ill. Their visceral and enthusiastic response to Longboat and the village was one of awe and great pleasure, realizing they had arrived in paradise. We walked to the Mar Vista and dined under the Buttonwood trees beside the water. Paradise!

Our guests spent three days with us. As I listened to the many accolades they bestowed on our community, I had a difficult time reconciling their perceptions of Longboat with the dure and alarming assessments coming frequently from our two planner commissioners.

I have never met anyone who did not love our aesthetically beautiful serene island ambiance. From spending time with many of these people, I have come to understand that there are "different strokes for different folks" and that people who fall in love with Longboat do not want to be in the hi-rise world of Boca Raton.

I encourage our planner commissioners to become Longboat Key boosters instead of detractors.
We need a great marketing campaign now if we are going to enable residents to sell their homes rather than their heirs.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Representative Government on Longboat Key


Representative Government: a form of government in which the citizens delegate authority to elected representatives.


A large percentage of our residents do not in fact enjoy representative government, because they are  non-residents or foreign nationals. These people cannot vote. They have no say about taxes or town codes or vision plans.


We are told by our representative government that this is the price one pays for having a second home in paradise. Yet the disenfranchised group pays a large percentage of our taxes. They are forcibly a part of a silent majority without voice or political power. No one asks them how they feel. A few individuals write letters. One or two attend town commission meetings. But in large part this group of unrepresented taxpayer residents go unheard.


Now we have a few commissioners who say over and over that the great majority of residents have approved the previous vision plan. Of course we do not know how the unrepresented taxpayer residents feel about the previous vision plan, or the new improved vision plan, because no one will ask them how they feel.


No matter that very few residents were given an opportunity to express their views about the old vision plan. No one really asked any taxpayers if they wanted to spend 100 thousand dollars on a piece of paper that will never see the light of day.


Only a few chosen people are being included in the new vision plan process. The old vision plan process at least included a few hundred business and real estate people and a smattering of regular residents of which I was one. The makeup of the new vision plan committee includes representation from the chamber of commerce and seems to be oriented mostly towards the business community on Longboat. I feel any vision plan should focus mainly on the residents who after all pay over 95% of the taxes.


I suspect we will be informed that since the previous vision plan was overwhelmingly approved by the residents, which it was not, because no one ever saw the old vision plan, the new vision plan need not be approved by anyone save the chosen group. After all isn't one vision plan is just like another vision plan?


I am amazed at what is now being created out of whole cloth.


I am wondering where representative government enters the picture. A sizable part of the residents have no representation at all, and now the residents who are able to vote are also being left out of the vision plan process.


The highly paid expert, who was hired to moderate the old vision plan process, told the town that the plan was not valid without carrying out a legitimate survey of the community. His words went unheeded.


Commissioners are now saying that the community approved the old vision plan, and by extension they approve the new vision plan.


What do you think?


I have been an active advocate of community participation in local government. That cannot happen if the government is not willing to engage the community.


Our current set of commissioners seems to ascribe to some sort of  "Noblesse oblige".

I cannot imagine that any sort of unvalidated vision plan, that may severely affect the fortunes of our residents, would be legislated into power without asking the people how they feel.


I believe we need a through examination of any proposed vision plan by the community at large. To me to have four or five commissioners impose some sort of illegitimate vision plan on the community is the antithesis of the spirit of representative government.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Amendment 4 - Vote Yes


Amendment 4, called Hometown Democracy, empowers voters to control growth and abuses by developers within their own communities.


Amendment 4 is the result of too many developers being able to control local town governments in Florida by buying elections of local officials.


The state of Florida has some of the most lax development laws in America.


Why should Longboaters care about Amendment 4 on the November ballot?


To begin with we are currently paying the price for over-development in the Florida market as is reflected in  the selling price of our homes.


In a world of supply and demand, Florida is experiencing the consequences of unbridled development and too many houses on the market. Other parts of the country are not experiencing devastating property value declines; communities that have regulated growth for the benefit of their residents.


Amendment 4 simply says that the people of a community, not three of four commissioners who are in office because a developer spent a lot of money to elect them, should be able to decide whether a development, that requires changes in land use, should be allowed in their community.


Of course developers, builders, chambers of commerce and the real estate community are against Amendment 4. None of these people usually reside in the community they want to develop for profit.


Ask yourself if the above interested parties would object to Amendment 4 if no one made money building developments.


Amendment 4 is vital if we are to control tourism and tall structures on our island.


One need look no further than the tragedy that has destroyed Panama City Beach. A very few years ago PCB resembled our own low-density residential/tourism mix community. Then the developers were able to influence local elections, A group of pro-developer officials were elected. Now Panama City Beach is little more than seven miles of shoulder-to-shoulder 22 story condo-tels that are vacant and bankrupt. Buss-loads of college-age revelers are brought in on weekends to have a good time and help pay the bills.


If you do not believe that the same could happen here - think again - it can.


As I write this article several commissioners are hard at work rewriting our land use codes and Comprehensive Plan to make our community more inviting for developers.


Do you want to live in a community where tourism controls our economy?

Do you want to see buss-loads of young people using Longboat Key for their parties?


Do you want traffic grid-lock every time you leave your home?


If you would not want to buy a home in a tourist town then you may want to vote for Amendment 4 to protect the value of your property.


There are a few myths being promoted by the developers and real estate community.


Myth 1: Amendment 4 will require many expensive elections
Fact:    Votes are held at normally scheduled election time.


Myth 2: Amendment 4 will cause many changes to our Comprehensive Plan.
Fact:    Longboat seldom addresses lands use changes.


Myth 3: Voters will not be able to understand proposed land use changes on the ballot.
Fact:    Proposed changes must be clearly described in 75 words or fewer.

Myth 4: New residential developments bring in more tax revenues.
Fact:    It costs the counties $1.30 to pay for each $1.00 received from new development.

Remember that 80% of your taxes are collected by the county. Longboat taxpayers are subsidizing developers in Manatee and Sarasota counties which includes development within our community.

Link to Amendment 4 - Yes web site. http://floridahometowndemocracy.com/

Please be well informed when you vote. It's your wallet.



Tuesday, October 5, 2010

To Rent Or Not To Rent


Some Longboat commissioners want to re-examine the rental policies of our community, that were overwhelmingly supported by our residents in a referendum vote. These commissioners, in their zeal to increase tourism, want to relax the rental rules, to allow daily and weekly property rentals where only monthly rentals are currently allowed.

My question is, at what price to our community do we underwrite a few local merchants?


Renters: neighborhood contagion, or a lifeline to beleaguered homeowners?


edited from a Smart Money article

In growing numbers of American towns and subdivisions, that question has become anything but academic, as homeowners associations abruptly ban rentals. Blame it on the huge slump in the housing market. For owners who have to move or who own houses as investment properties, short-term rentals can bring in some cash and keep them from having to sell at a big loss.

But instead of greeting renters with hosannas, many towns and subdivisions are barring their doors, arguing that tenants usher in neglect, misbehavior and even violent crime. Almost 60 million Americans live in developments governed by homeowners associations, and by some estimates as many as 40 percent of those communities enforce restrictions that keep owners from becoming landlords.


Indeed, many associations are enacting even tighter anti-renter rules — even in the parts of the country hit hardest by falling prices. Often the backlash comes after the rowdy-tenant threat becomes a reality.


In Sacramento an active-adult community recently erupted into a geriatric war zone over rental rules after tenants got blamed for diapers in the pool and other transgressions. The city of North Las Vegas had so much trouble with crime and vandalism, much of it attributed to renters, that it forbade new home buyers from leasing out their homes within two years of purchase.


Other communities see the restrictions as a way to put a floor under falling prices: The mayor of Madison, WI, for example, began tightening that town's rules after the downturn started depressing prices.


The conflicts help explain one of the more bitter ironies of the real estate scene. Even though demand for rentals is at an all-time high, there are now 18 million vacant housing units in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau. More than a third of those properties are being left vacant by their owners intentionally, a trend that’s being exacerbated by local renting rules. To be sure, some communities are easing restrictions in a bid to lure buyers. But other subdivisions are digging in their heels even as homeowners beg for relief.


To see how the conflict is playing out, Smart Money caught up with owners in communities from the bubble markets of California to the stable South, on both sides of the tenant divide.


Why Are Renters Seen as Undesirable?


The idea that renters are about as good for a neighborhood as an infestation of termites has been around for a long time, particularly in upscale communities. In May, in a ruling that upheld rental restrictions, the Indiana Supreme Court observed that it is “undisputed” that “an owner-occupant is both psychologically and financially invested in the property to a greater extent than the renter.”


Thus, the thinking goes, renters are less likely to maintain and improve their homes. But proof that this phenomenon affects property values isn’t overwhelming. A California study found that homes fetched lower prices in communities where more than 30 percent of properties were renter-occupied, but that study dates from 1987. Whether governed by perception or reality, anti-renter sentiment is pervasive: Even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refuse to underwrite mortgages in condo projects where a majority of units are rentals.


During the boom years, antipathy toward renters was heightened by the easy availability of credit — when any monkey could get an ARM, someone who couldn’t get approved for a mortgage seemed truly untrustworthy. This skepticism fueled a huge surge in restrictions, according to Joseph Cusimano, a Cleveland attorney who represents almost 500 condo and homeowners associations.


Some policies limited the number of homes that could be leased within a subdivision, while others banned rentals altogether. The rules don’t discriminate between hardened speculators and owners who have more benign reasons for renting.

The Upside of Having Renters Around

While short-term residents may have their downsides, so does a street full of vacancies. More than 7.5 million homeowners are underwater on their mortgage, meaning they owe more than their house is worth. There’s little to stop such strapped owners from mailing the keys back to the lender — “jingle mail,” it’s called — and letting the property sink into foreclosure.

Numerous studies demonstrate the ruinous effect foreclosures have on home values; one, by researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Woodcock Institute, showed that a home’s value declines by about 1 percent for each foreclosure within an eighth of a mile.



New Barriers to Renting


The city of Madison, WI recently erected yet another set of barriers. Today anyone planning to rent out a home must pay a nonrefundable fee to the city, plus post costly surety bonds -— the latter process not unlike a prisoner posting bail. Although the ordinance specifically targets “absentee landlords,” in practice it punishes real estate investors of all stripes.