The social enthusiasts of Sarasota faced with the collapse of the availability of cheap housing are pointing to the failure of builders and developers to do anything about the problem. This blanket indictment of the building industry, assumes that when an industry dealing in a fundamental commodity for which there is a constant real demand, and a critical and crying need, confesses that it is unable to supply any part of the housing market but the richest third, and that the other two-thirds must satisfy themselves with a secondhand, resold product, that this is an industry confession equivalent to moral bankruptcy. When the industry admits that it is suffering from trying to keep up with production at the level of prices selling outside the affordable range, the entire community puts their moral outrage on the developers and builders. Yet this blanket indictment of emotion is unfair. The members of the building industry are neither heartless or fools. Their fault and the fault of the community is historical. No one in the community is indifferent to the situation as much as we are ignorant, and hamstrung by our own prejudices and traditions. The short of it is that we have run out of enough zoned land with density in the north part of Sarasota County. The simple law of supply and demand has caught up with our other simple belief that we would always have enough land in Sarasota to accommodate all needs and lifestyles.

First, we believed for years in an absolute model that fewer people would want to live here than would want to visit. Except for the cities of Sarasota and Venice, the unincorporated areas of our County had no zoning until the late sixties. Zoning rules began with Siesta Key in an attempt to regulate high rise construction, and then gradually rolled out into the County in the early 70’s. Even with the publishing of Apoxsee, the County’s land plan in the mid-seventies, the plan was loose on details and really never contemplated growth east of where Interstate 75 is today. Not planning for growth was political benign neglect that fostered County government not to plan for central sewer and water, not to plan for adequate roads, and not to zone land for anything other than “suburban Ranches” of 5 to 10 acres east of the interstate. If you wanted to live east of the interstate, County government, with the blessing of the citizens of Sarasota said, “we are building no roads, water, or sewer, we’re making no plans for grocery stores, gas stations, or doctors, because that’s the way we like it.” And so it has been until today.

In truth we have not planned. When you stop to consider that we allowed any residential construction east of I-75, north of Vamo Road to the Sarasota-Manatee County line without providing any human services facility save for a gas station/convenience store on Fruitville Road, you have to wonder how anyone could look you in the eye with a straight face and call that “planning.” Not that professional staff and others have not proposed alternative solutions. Attempts at change have been brought forward as singular rezonings, In isolation of the bigger picture of what is necessary in order to keep our community livable.

Each proposal is met with an opponent that espouses that maintenance of the “status quo” is the “plan” for our future. The definition of the community “plan” for development depends on who you are, its interpretation depends on when the proponent, or the opponent, landed in Sarasota County. The differing points of view have fueled an endless struggle on both sides of this land planning tug of war, which will not stop until we face the need to establish priorities.

First, rules alone that are held to be inviolate, have caused us to not recognize that our community map is not the re-creation of Walden Pond. Like most communities, we are a portrait of our sins of omission and commission of the past. When seen in isolation, the entire mix of land uses, appear not only well intentioned, but reasonable. However, when you open the book wide, you see the compromises and exceptions that must be made in order for us to continue to be a prosperous, welcome place for people of all incomes and backgrounds. Can we have affordable housing without reducing lot sizes, or increasing densities? Can we do that while at the same time maintaining a level of service “C” on our road network? We are so far behind on road construction, that regardless of how you tweak road impact fees, credit or no credits, we can’t keep up with regional growth. Improvement to traffic is not just building roads but public transportation, and we don’t have the funds for that save for the “water taxi.” We want economic development, but if we expand the major employment centers, we further burden ourselves with the failure to meet infrastructure concurrency, and probably eliminate opportunities for affordable housing. Infill and redevelopment within the urban service boundary seems logical, until faced with neighborly opposition, owners not wanting to sell, a lack of vacant parcels and again, a recognition that without density increases, can we provide affordable housing? Hard and fast rules, that paint our vision in definitive colors of black and white, are just not working. Twenty years ago we had a lot of “dirt” for which wildlife competition was more based upon the habitats of birds and beast, rather than humans. Demand has now got us to the point that our biggest “wildlife” question has become how do we manage the human explosion?

The EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) is a “temperature taking” or “assessment” according to the planning staff, of how we are doing on the “bigger picture.” “Word-smithing” and looking at the issues, one by one, will put us on a treadmill that instead of addressing the problem, frustrates the community and leads to the construction of less housing, in all price categories. Punitive and social engineering programs like “Gap fees,” and inclusionary zoning raises costs of housing for all but a very few. Based upon the history of such programs in California this leads to a widening gap of housing availability and prices. Simply ask yourself, if these programs are so successful, why does California have the highest housing costs and the greatest shortfall of available housing of any state in our nation? That is not to say that we cannot solve the problem, it is to say that we can not solve the problem by imposing programs that have proven not to work.

If affordable housing is a community goal, let us begin with a commitment to solve the problem, without being slaves to rules and regulations established in the past, that do not address today’s problems. Let us be creative to build affordable, sustainable housing in an attractive creative fashion that involves both government and private sector contribution. Inventory lands in public ownership that might be able to be used for housing construction. Establish 40 year land leases on these lots, so you have a self regulating price control mechanism on price increases, without need for bureaucratic oversight and government control. Pay down the cost of infrastructure and down payment assistance, with general obligation bond issues spread over the entire community. When we adopt the community land trust, let us not begin with the assumption that passive hope will create affordable housing through a mechanism that won’t work without dirt and funding.

As was stated by County staff in a discussion of affordable housing “we want to stimulate not mandate the sprit of affordable housing.” We need a community recognition that in form there is no desire on the part of anyone, neither government nor private sector, to construct the slums of tomorrow as was done in the 1960’s. No we’re talking today of “workforce housing,” with “ownership” as a fundamental model. Fee simple ownership may not work in the future. Instead the model should include partnership, not as a life subsidy, but as a ladder of wealth building. As a society we have embraced familial assistance in the purchase of our first house, not as the means to an end, but to a beginning. In our self interest as a community, it is time that we partner with our workforce, builders, developers, and neighbors to maintain our diversity as a community to sustain everyone’s quality of life.