Pineapple Square - The Real Deal

Date last updated 10:16 am Mar 6th, 2007

Pineapple Square - What is the Real Issue?

One of the recurring discussions of this campaign has been the City Commission’s handling of the “land swap” that put the city’s State Street public parking lot under the immediate control of, and eventually in possession of the Pineapple Square developer. Many would have you believe that the issue is whether the Pineapple Square project will be “good” or “bad” for the city. Please do not be sidetracked by that diversion – the real issues are stewardship of public assets, how decisions are to be made at the City Commission table, and even the proper assignment of duties under the City Charter.

First, consider the transaction the City Commission approved as a simple real estate swap – one piece of land for certain rights to another. (Interestingly, it was the developer’s request to have it considered this way that became then-Mayor Servian’s rationalization to keep the entire issue out of the purview of the Community Redevelopment Advisory Board (CRAAB), as if it wasn’t an investment by the city in the project, rather a simple land swap.) If one accepts that as true, how did we do?

Here’s roughly what the city gave up: Unencumbered title to the existing State Street public parking lot, the State Street right-of-way between Lemon and Pineapple Avenues and all of the public parking thereon. In exchange the city received the rights to build 350 public parking spaces in air space that is partially owned by the developer and partially leased from the Methodist Church for a finite period. (Eventually the city also gave some control of its First Street public parking lot, but that is not a part of this analysis because there was nothing offered in exchange beyond a token lease payment.)

The most serious and fundamental flaw with this transaction is that the city gave permanent ownership rights in exchange for transitory lease and air-space rights. In 50 or 100 years, when the Pineapple Square development no longer exists, the city will own nothing and have access rights to nothing. Recovering either will be extremely expensive at that time. Isn’t stewardship about protecting the public interest over the long term, not just over a term of office or two?

I would also argue that there is no objective measure that would place the value of the two sides of this “swap” at anywhere near equal. Ironically given the argument that this transaction be viewed only as a swap, no such analysis was requested by then Mayor Servian before she pushed for this transaction to be approved. How can this be justified?

Now of course the argument becomes “Look at the benefits to downtown Sarasota from this project! It is well worth our investment!” The problem here is that argument begs analysis from the CRAAB, or at least some quantitative measure on investment and return. Once again, the project avoided any such analysis through the “land swap” argument. So what was it, fish or fowl? Was it an investment or a simple swap? I say that what we had was a massive investment by the city in a private development that received no review of the numbers whatsoever by the City Commission. Most foul indeed!

The then Mayor ignored input of those speaking against this one-sided swap, including from city management, city staff, the city’s own hired independent appraiser and economic consultant, members of the CRAAB, city attorney, neighborhood groups, area associations, citizens, businesses owners and Commissioner Lou Ann Palmer. Yet somehow she declares the project as “the most community-consensus-let project in the past five years” even after the Sarasota Herald Tribune broke the story that every person and organization that spoke at the commission table in favor of this State Street land give-away had financial ties to the developer.

Finally the incumbent was quoted in the October 2004 issue of SRQ Magazine, when asked what she wished she had done better in the previous year: “I would have wanted better economic analysis of the TIF dollars given to developers, particularly regarding Whole Foods. If I’m truly honest with myself, I was probably more concerned about fulfilling the goal of the Master Plan in getting a grocery downtown and securing a quality project from Casto. In retrospect, I would have demanded more information. We probably still would have given Whole Foods TIF dollars, but maybe not as much. Since then, we have hired a financial consultant to help us analyze the TIF dollar requests.” Hired, yes. Ignored? That too! How does that make sense?

In her campaign appearances, Mary Anne Servian continues to justify the deal made by the city on this project using the arguments that were advanced by the developer at the time of approval, arguments that have been refuted by every credible independent expert and professional staffer. Do you want a City Commissioner relationship with a developer or fondness for a particular project allows for tolerance of such a flawed decision-making process? I most certainly do not.

The incumbent has also suggested on the campaign trail that my bringing these issues to the table represents “negative campaigning.” I respectfully disagree – decisions such as this have serious and long-term implications for our city, and our City Commissioners must be held to account for the manner in which they are made. That is why this election is being held, and why I am a candidate for the District 2 seat.

Any project that comes to our downtown deserves to be successful, after all it is a tapestry we are weaving, not a series of stand-alone works art. If I am elected, I will work with the other commissioners and the Pineapple Square developer to make sure our city realizes the potential this development has to offer. The mistakes made by the incumbent as a steward of our public assets are not the fault that of the developer. I will however also pledge in the future to work guarantee that such major public decisions consider all relevant information, and that we receive fair and documented return on all investments that we make – or for what we’re “swapping”.