The Argus Foundation together with the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, The Downtown Partnership, Downtown Commercial Property Owners, Main Street Merchants Association, Bayfront Condo Association, and Gulf Coast Builders Exchange hosted a forum of the public on May 13, 2004 in order to ask the question are we making downtown a place to live, shop and work? Despite the efforts of residential construction, the above organizations felt that without a plan and strategy we are all struggling with the question, can we fulfill our promise to revive Main Street to our promised vision?

The keynote speaker, Bob Gibbs, shared with us the competitive battlefield of retailing, and pointed out through case histories of West Palm Beach, Naples, Fl., Charleston, S.C., Baton Rouge, La, and Fort Collins, Co., the challenges of competition for shoppers, the need to maintain the character of independent shop keepers in a mix with national retailers, and the unwanted results when renewal fails. Bob is active on the national retail scene, and pointed out that there is a rush to capture the underserved retail of this market. If downtown Sarasota Main Street is going to recapture its focus of retail and office, it is critical that the following are accomplished soon.

• Structured public parking be provided. The Argus preferred approach would be that garages be built and operated by the private sector, on property currently owned by the city and now used as surface parking.

Property owners need to come together as a consortium to rebuild Main Street in a configuration that allows for building revitalization in order to attract quality retailers, with office space or residential housing over the second or third floors. As Bob Gibbs suggested, as an alternative, the property owners could also join together with a national developer who could both market and develop the property.

• Develop through a charette and plan a vision and character in keeping with what Sarasotans want and expect of their Main Street. The Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA) needs to be reconstituted from its elected official only status, to include downtown commercial and residential property owners in determining how TIF (tax increment finance) money will be used. It is not enough to have well intentioned individuals serving as advisors, or elected officials making decisions as to the future of downtown, without property owners, who have their investment at risk, joining together to make bold decisions dealing with livability, cleanliness, safety and attractiveness of streets and public spaces. With the stake-holders involved in the decision making process, it will help attract new businesses and residents to invest in downtown creating a more attractive environment. Being involved in the decision making process will encourage greater accountability by the private sector assuring that the vision is carried out in conjunction with private investment.

A turnout to the forum of approximately 400 citizens should be testament enough to the concern that the entire community holds for the future of Main Street. We need to be pro-active not re-active if we expect the revitalization of Main Street and the Downtown core to be done in a fashion that returns Downtown to the vibrant center of our region as it once was in its past.

The headline read “Gone in 90 Minutes, Condos at Main Street, Palm Avenue Sell Fast.” In less than an hour and a half 129 of the 134 condominium units were sold. The developer, Sarasota Main Street LLC had previously petitioned the Sarasota City Commission to increase their density from 50 units an acre to 200 units per acre in order to be able to provide more affordable housing downtown. In their petition to increase density, the developer offered to make a contribution for each unit sold to an “affordable housing fund.” Sounds like a win-win solution for everyone, until you see the latest petition for “tax increment financing” assistance, which according to their petition, without which “we would be forced (like all other recent projects in the downtown and waterfront) to build larger units and sell these units for a much higher price.” The developer wants an up-front financial contribution of $2 million dollars from the City of Sarasota.

Here is how it breaks down:

All of the above costs are normally paid by the developer, and are not waived or subsidized “for public benefit.” In fact when you analyze the pro-forma cash flow summary of Sarasota Main Street, LLC, you come away with the belief that the largest investor in this project will be the City of Sarasota with $2 million! Though the Limited Partnership will invest $3,250,000 through 2005, they will have returned their equity investment to their investors by 2007, together with a net profit of $10,193,650. All this data is contained within the tax increment finance application request on file with the City of Sarasota Planning Department.

The Argus Foundation is a defender of free enterprise and the ability to profit from taking risk and hard labor. However, the tax increment finance district was established to fund projects in the downtown that create true public benefit like parking, sidewalks, streetscapes, true “utility relocations,” etc. If we approve, or encourage, this kind of public subsidy we will have no money left from the tax increment to pay for the projects that are creating the public space of a vibrant downtown. The City of Sarasota created adequate opportunity for the development of affordable housing by increasing the allowable density fourfold. It now needs to keep its powder dry to finish up the job of making Main Street not only a place to live, but a place to shop, and work. Let us not start subsidizing housing projects with public money where the “average” residential contract value is $555,019.

Now that the County 2050 Plan has weathered a final challenge, and the evaluation and appraisal report of the Comprehensive Plan of the County is about to be transmitted to the state, it is time to focus on making both work for the benefit of all citizens of Sarasota County.

In the case of 2050 we all need to recognize that if we believe in the overriding principles of clustering development, both residential and commercial, and in preserving open space, we should not let the micro-management of rules cause impediments that discourage this preferred form of development. It must be kept in mind that 2050 is an “overlay district” meaning that it is an option for development, and not a requirement. The County has wisely been working with Schroeder-Manatee in “testing” the rules, but must work pro-actively with all land owners to make sure that they remove as many “devils” from the details up-front, before the adoption of the final land development regulations. It would be a community tragedy if after countless human and financial resources have been expended that the results of 2050 lie on a shelf as an academic exercise. We are relying on our elected leadership to insist that this does not happen.

At the same time that we deal with 2050, comes the convergence of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the County Comprehensive Plan. This too has caused some consternation, especially in moving the “urban service boundary,” an imaginary line representing more of a mythological belief to many that development does not go beyond this artificial boundary. On the one hand our elected officials want to contain growth within this boundary in order to protect the possible development of projects under the 2050 Plan, while at the same time recognizing that County utilities are in place and not being utilized based upon the arbitrary delineation of this border. In truth this artificial “stranding” of community assets is leading to further development of 5 and 10 acre tracts of property east of I-75, while at the same time driving up the cost of land. This is not to say that anyone proposes to open the flood gates of development, but only to recognize that if we are going to permit future development we are better off as a community in allowing development in locations that currently have existing infrastructure. In being an elected official legal requirements and good planning sometimes fly in the face of universal popularity. The County Commission faces this fact on this issue. A moderate approach that recognizes the constraints of the current boundaries, the market demand, and a hope that by allowing development to take place in close proximity to existing utilities that we will discourage sprawl, hopefully will lead our County Commissioners to making a responsible decision on this issue.