How about constructive discourse?

I had the opportunity to watch the video of the June 10 Sarasota Planning Board meeting. Board member Dan DeLeo’s announcement at the end of the meeting that he had not applied to be re-appointed was outrageous and offensive.

DeLeo berated the city’s planning staff, accusing it of “having their fingers on the scale in favor of developers” and that its “reports are slanted to the development/applicant” and that “staff (is an) advocate that intervenes on behalf of development interests differently than the public interest.”

These statements are an insult to the city staff’s professionalism. And sadly, in a larger context, they are also reflective of the negative attitude pervading our community dialogue in a very unsettling way.  

I am a professional land planner, practicing in the city since 1980. Ken Thompson was the city manager then. Things were pretty easy going. The staff report for major projects, which were few and far between, were maybe five pages. A City Commission meeting never lasted longer than the time it took to be home in time to watch the baseball game. City Hall was open door.  

Downtown was also dead then at 5 p.m., mostly because of the re-routing of U.S. 41. The tax base was in the doldrums. Developers were mostly local property owners and were professionals, business owners, retirees and community leaders in all walks of life. No one ever derided developers because citizens wanted new development; needed the financial investment in the community; and had respect for those who invested. 

If I read off the names of some of these people who committed themselves during the years, you would recognize them all as upstanding and respected members of the Sarasota community.   

Since then, a lot has been accomplished, and the city has grown significantly and pretty much according to plan.  

First, the 1983 R/UDAT plan, which resulted in the establishment of downtown as a blighted area. Although people resented that designation, it was a clear acknowledgment of the condition of the downtown area. 

After that came the creation of the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District and the Community Redevelopment Agency, comprising trusted community leaders appointed by the City Commission. Following that was the 2022 Downtown Master Plan and creation of the Downtown Improvement District. Most of the people who complain these days either weren’t here or came later and live in homes built by the people against whom they rail today. It is misinformed and disingenuous, at best.  

Aside from downtown redevelopment and the return of residential living, we have seen the spin-off effect of the resurgence of livability — increased property values of city neighborhoods, a library, a bridge, city parking garages, development of the Rosemary District and the Public Art program. We have seen redevelopment of public housing, which has been vastly improved; Payne Park has been developed; Bobby Jones finally (almost) done; Marina Jack expanded and increasing revenue; Island Park improved; The Bay Park is advancing; Ken Thompson Park was created and has improved; roundabouts have been implemented. And on and on. 

A lot of things have happened and are happening. But they are happening in spite of themselves, with no grand vision or leadership.  

A recent panel selected to discuss the downtown Master Plan update process was riddled with opinions of “experts” who bemoaned (except for the lone city staff member) the state of affairs of the city. One, when asked about property rights and the zoning code, simply said, “I’m for ‘people’s rights,’” as if that is something which is even comparable in that conversation — and he was a lawyer!  

Another just wanted “things to go back to where they were,” all without a single constructive, positive suggestion or idea about the Master Plan update moving forward and the future of the city. The focus was simply on “what’s wrong.”   

The constant refrain of needing to address the interests of residents seems to isolate those interests — “us versus them” —  above those of the other constituents of the city, such as property owners, business owners, visitors, not-for-profits/service organizations, institutions, first responders, homeless and more. In a tight-knit community, all our interests should be focused on the same mission.  

Yet we have people in the community and running for public office who seem to only have an “us versus them” platform and are willing to create political alliances to promote that. 

Civic relations are more divisive than ever before. People act as if property rights are secondary, that codes and regulations aren’t good enough to “protect” them from the evils they perceive (even though they might be part of the problem). And then they rail against commissioners who don’t do their bidding, damn the law. 

Or worse, elected officials vote despite the law to appease potential voters or special interests. There never seems to be a middle way of offering suggestions to make things better or offer any kind of real leadership like we once had in the community.

The point is: The type of railing and rancor expressed by DeLeo is below the station of our public officials. If one sits through the Development Review Committee process, one would find it is devoid of personal or professional bias, as are the resulting staff reports and as are the staff presentations in public hearings. 

Accusations that they are otherwise are untrue and an insult to the staff’s professionalism, objectivity and integrity. 

Instead of constantly bemoaning and at times arguing for positions that would place the city in legal jeopardy, people should provide constructive input to change the codes they don’t like in a public process and not just seek to berate or alienate other people.   

My wish is that city commissioners in particular, and we all as citizens of this great city, each provides real leadership and forges a public discourse that is more respectful, understanding and honest.

Bruce Franklin is president of Sarasota-based Land Resource Strategies LLC.