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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

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