Firestorm? Here's a match and some lighter fluid,
courtesy of the Herald-Trib
Kim Hackett's article on Michelle Ross-Litzler and her efforts to
beef up Tramonto Vista Park (Sewer
plant park cut back, Sarasota
Herald-Tribune, 01/16/08) is filled with inaccuracies piled
on top of inaccuracies, enough that a retraction of the entire article is in
order.
Hackett writes that Litzler's efforts have touched off a firestorm. Judging from
the emails I have received in the last 24 hours,
Litzler's firestorm is not nearly as big as the one touched off by Hackett's
fictional account of events surrounding discussions of development at the park.
In 2003, then-public officials Dean Calamaras, Jim Myers, and George Hunt were
working the local political circuit to drum up support for a $10 million bond
ballot referendum. Part of the money was to be used to buy land from the airport
to be turned into a passive park.
Citizen activists like Maxine Barritt and Sue Lang had organized petition drives
with the intent of returning the land, as closely as possible, to its natural
state. In fact, the Venice Neighborhoods Coalition was born out of this single
issue.
City leaders, fearful that the bond would not pass in the November, 2003,
election, made repeated election promises that the land would be turned into a
passive park. Bond promotion literature given out by the city prior to the
election repeatedly used the phrase "passive park."
The second longest stretch of undeveloped beach in the
state
The ONLY things that were discussed in the promotional documents that
would be included in the park is the following (and I am quoting from the
documents): "Parking lot, walkovers and boardwalks, dune creation and sea oat
planting. Also under consideration: public restrooms and expansion of adjacent
paw park parking lot."
That's it. That's ALL that was promised prior to the passage of the bond.
The community center, also a bond-funded issue, was promoted as a concert venue.
There were a number of reasons for making the park passive, but foremost was
the idea that it would turn the stretch of beach, from Sharkey's southward, into
the second-longest stretch of undeveloped beachfront on the
west coast of Florida, a major
tourist incentive and a huge environmental statement to the rest of the state
(the longest on the west coast is up in the panhandle).
The bond passed by a very narrow margin (just a couple of percentage points if I
recall correctly).
One year later and promises were already being broken
Less than a year after the bond passed, city fathers were already trying
to change the deal that had been struck with voters. Suddenly a concert
pavilion, a playground, gazebos, picnic tables,
a professional beach volleyball court, and a variety
of other things were under consideration. Barritt's group and the Venice
Neighborhoods Coalition raised a huge ruckus. Between the ruckus created and the
fact that the city didn't relish the expense, the further developments in the
park were shelved, albeit temporarily thanks to the groups mentioned in
Hackett's article: Litzler, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.
No. You can't have it. Not yours.
So, in 2003, citizens were promised a passive park in exchange for
support for the $10 million ballot initiative. A deal was struck between city
hall and the voters. Now comes Litzler, who wants city hall to, again,
try to break an agreement made with voters back in 2003.
No.
A deal is a deal. Sorry you don't like the deal, but you're going to have to
learn to live with it.
You can't have it. Not yours.
No.
That Litzler lives "only a few feet outside [of] the city limits" is irrelevant.
She lives an awful lot of dollars outside of the city limits. Litzler has the
convenient luxury of being able to tell other folks how to spend their money
without having to cough up a dime to pay for it herself. It isn't geography that
makes Litzler an outsider, it's her closed pocketbook and her willingness to
encourage city hall to break a promise.
And that's just wrong.
Add to that the fictional version of history that Litzler
is contributing to the social dialog and that the Herald-Trib is endorsing as
true by giving validity to the fiction that current plans are "scaled back."
And that's just wrong, too.
On her web
site, Michelle Ross-Litzler writes, "We
are requesting the Honorable Ed Martin and City Council Members revisit their
decisions on the plans of this park, and to
support the ORIGINAL PLANS for Tramonto Vista."
Relax, Michelle. Current council is doing exactly that. They
are returning to the ORIGINAL PLANS and working upwards from there. However, this is not, as your web site
states and as Hackett's article implies, a breaking of a promise made to Venice's families. It
is a return to the original promise made to voters in 2003 when the city was
trying to get the voters to cough up $10 million.
And that's just right.
