Letter: City leaders set the tone

Letter: City leaders set the tone

F.R. "Pete" Grant, president, Save the Ponce
St. Augustine

January 30, 2004

Editor: Dear Mayor and Commissioners: Eleven months ago over 3,000 citizens of St. Augustine, and almost 1,000 more visitors to the city, signed a petition asking you to not approve the current development plans for the Ponce de Leon property. Most of these signers do not play golf, but they saw the reasons not to allow 749 houses on 419 acres of pristine woodland and prime marshfront property. These signatures were collected in just two weeks. At the time we felt this was a sufficient number to show the will of the people of St. Augustine and discontinued efforts to collect signatures as a show of good faith toward the developer, whom we thought was negotiating in good faith with the city to find an equitable solution.

I can understand why Ponce Associates wants to place 89 lots along the sensitive marshfront. The golf course was profitable, but not as lucrative as selling 89 marshfront lots and leaving town with money. Eliminating the open space and putting in additional 200 houses is not the development plan that you approved for this property in 2001. Just because the developer wants to improve his profit margin, you are not required to allow such a drastic deviation from the PUD.

You are being called on to make a decision that will set the tone for what type of St. Augustine you want. Even though we only have a population of 12,000, millions of tourists visit yearly. You can only maintain this level of interest by carefully continuing to guard the scenic environment and the history that these visitors are searching for. They don't come to visit subdivisions! I am certain that those who crafted the tree ordinance never envisioned it being used to justify the stripping of the majority of all natural habitat and destruction of 4,000 mature trees.

From watching the news recently, it is apparent that the county is struggling with growth and the impact on taxes even as I write this. For example, Commissioner Marc Jacalone recently said he would never have approved a certain development if he had known all the details of what was required to make the land suitable for the approved development. It is not wise to approve development on land that is known to be arsenic contaminated when no one has seen the remediation plan. Next, there is the impact of the airport on local residents, and facing increased costs and ill-will from the public as the airport expands. Yet the city is contemplating adding residential units in the northern portion of the Ponce property which abuts Araquay Park -- in the same area where Director Ed Wuellner states that the airport will expand further in the future. This does not mention that actions which impact the airport may have significant negative impact on Northrop-Grumman. And, of course there is all the discussion of impact fees and how to make residential development pay its fair share. These same issues the county is attempting to address are the one imbedded in the Ponce development.

This piece of property represents a significant addition, greater than 10 percent, to the city, both in terms of land base and potential population increase. Thus, it also represents a significant addition to the infrastructure and service cost born by city and county taxpayers.

Making appropriate decisions on the proper use of this land should be the outcome of proper planning. This includes the Comprehensive Plan and the Planned Unit Development. Both of which are being violated by the current development plan. While the commission has made many important decisions, it is possible that the city may never again have to make a decision of this nature and magnitude. Don't shortcut the planning process, even under threat from a developer. While some would say that the city does not have the right to decide how property is utilized, on the contrary, it is clear from state and federal court decisions, as well as city ordinance and PUD guidelines, that the city is charged with protecting the rights of the property owner but also protecting the interest of all citizens of the city, and guiding land development to its best usage.

Residential development is, at best, a break-even proposition for the tax base and therefore, revenue increase is not a reason to approve this development, yet it is the only one I have heard from the city staff. The proposed residential development will only drain the city's coffers. Whereas historic and eco-tourism brings revenue (and jobs) to the city, with little cost of providing public services. Please carefully consider your decision