LBK voters need the ‘why’

It’s not easy or fun to take on reviewing and updating a state constitution or town charter. But it’s important work.

On Longboat Key, five committed residents volunteered for that task from April through June. They deserve Longboaters’ appreciation (see box). 

These committee members pored through 66 subjects and 9,000 words of the town’s governing constitution with an eye toward suggesting amendments or adjustments to improve the town’s governance or meld the town’s governance with the times.

This is not a job to be dismissive of details. 

Since the town’s voters adopted the initial charter in 1957 — then called Special Acts, the document has been amended 10 times. In fact, the charter itself instructs the Town Commission to appoint a committee to review the charter no less than once every 10 years.

The last time Longboaters amended the charter was in 2008. Two of the amendments on the ballot have become crucial in today’s debates about redevelopment on Longboat Key. One gave nonconforming condominiums and tourism properties the right to rebuild the same number of units in the event of voluntary or involuntary destruction. A second amendment gave the Town Commission the authority to permit and allocate 250 tourism units to developers in an effort to replace the 250 units lost on the Key between 2000 and 2008.

Had not voters approved those charter amendments, Chuck Whittall, owner of Unicorp National Development Corp., quite likely would not be attempting his new development for the Colony. Likewise, the Zota Beach Resort may not have added 84 rooms out of the 250-room pool to its 103-room resort. And, no surprise, there are residents who would like to rescind the remaining 166 tourism units.

The town charter makes a difference.

In its completed report, the Charter Review Committee submitted 37 proposed changes to the charter — 33 of which it dubbed administrative and four as policy changes. On Monday, commissioners reached a consensus to give voters a say on three of the four policy proposals:

• Giving the commission flexibility to issue up to $5 million in bonds without a referendum;
• Changing commissioners terms limits from three two-year terms to two three-year terms;
• And eliminating preliminary elections in the event of three or more candidates vying for a particular seat; and requiring a candidate to obtain 50% or more of the vote to win. In the event no candidate wins 50% or more in the general election, the top two candidates would compete in a subsequent election after the general election.

Commissioners rapidly dismissed one of the proposals that some Town Hall insiders sought to increase the number of candidates running for the commission: That one proposed to reduce the number of town voting districts from five to four and increase the number of at-large commissioners from two to three. 

The big bugaboo with that one was commissioners’ fear that the Town Commission could be stacked with four members from one district — say, four Villagers or four commissioners from Bay Isles.

Commissioners also agreed to place on the town ballot the 33 administrative amendments.

In coming editions, the Longboat Observer will explain the key elements of these proposals — why the committee is recommending them; the problem to be solved; the pros and cons; and some of the likely consequences if adopted. 

If you take the time to read through the committee’s recommendations, you can see how it wants to change the charter. What you can’t see is the why — the context. Voters should know that; it matters.

While we will attempt to provide that context in coming editions, the town also could help voters by posting on its website the proposed changes and the committee’s rationale.

Business management guru Simon Sinek wrote a popular book whose title applies to the town’s charter review changes. The name of the book: “Start With Why.”