Trying to silence public opinion on the Firmenich property by turning the next City Commission meeting into a quasi-judicial hearing is bad for democracy and bad for Safety Harbor. Although in a quasi-judicial hearing, "the decision making body is not allowed to use public sentiment or unsubstantiated evidence as the basis for making a decision", this doesn't mean that the City Commission should deny Safety Harbor residents their right to speak their opinions about the Firmenich property. If the people will not be allowed to speak their opinions on the Firmenich property inside the City Commission meeting, then the people should gather outside City Hall with signs to let the public know what they think about the City Commissioners rezoning the Firmenich property to allow large scale apartment buildings. I'm very happy that we now have the Safety Harbor Patch, where our First Amendment rights are alive and well, and we are able to express our opinions on the Firmenich property.

Well I probably won't attend then, if I am not allowed to speak. My motivations are totally sentimental which I guess is also not allowed.....if I am reading the format correctly. I signed the petition already however.

I guess the "certain rules and procedures" aren't important enough to explain in advance of the meeting though. I've noted that even my progressive neighbors tend to not be in favor of permitting the Richman Group to develop the property. On this issue we can agree. Developing the Firmenich property into apartments is no sure ticket to increased tax revenues, especially when the developer has established methods to assure their financial gain at the expense of a community. With laws allowing apartment owners to avoid property taxes if their occupancy's don't meet their guidelines for profit. I think its important to extract guarantees from the developer to not use these tools to avoid taxes that put homeowners and community in a worse tax situation than already exists. The laws are substantiated and exist, which allow apartment owners to avoid paying property taxes if they rent to low income people. Community business owners should be wary of this kind of development coming into our city. Don't fall for the garbage that it will increase your sales. Accountants tend to be short sighted and only interested in today's profit for their gain or profit sharing. Regardless of rules, public sentiment is a legitimate gauge for a projects worth. Firmenich should receive a tax abatement until they can sell the property to a buyer that will develop more in line with public sentiment. If the City Commission goes against public sentiment, they do at the peril of their political futures.

Just to clarify, member of the public are allowed to speak at this type of meeting. There is just no direct response and rebuttal from the sworn in parties.

WHY isnt he patch doing an article on all the people against this happening? That is more news.

"There is just no direct response and rebuttal from the sworn in parties."

"the decision making body is not allowed to use public sentiment or unsubstantiated evidence as the basis for making a decision."

This is the wording that discouraged me from speaking at the P & Z meeting. It is an end around run that in essence says we have our minds made up. So unless you have specific studies about this project just saying you are against it will not sway our decision. The public not having the resources to have studies done is basically cooked. The keywords in the statement are "not allowed" so public sentiment means nothing they can claim they are required to vote based on the law. You don’t have thousands of dollars of studies showing why this shouldn't go through? Have a nice day!

I just spoke to City Manager Matt Spoor - to clarify the previous clarification, the public absolutely will be able to speak at the meeting. During the quasi-judicial portion of the meeting, affected parties have to be sworn in and provide examples of how the proposed changes would affect them personally. They will be able to "cross-examine" any other sworn in participants, similar to a court hearing. Following the quasi-judicial portion, a regular public hearing will be held where anyone can speak without being sworn in. Mr. Spoor said, "If someone has something to say, they will be given an opportunity to speak. I encourage them to come to the meeting."

I respect Matt I know he is doing his job and it can be trying. But the pulse I am getting is that public sentiment is being railroaded by meeting switcheroos, Of course no one will be denied their right to speak but this "quasi-judicial hearing" thingy has a lot of people scratching their heads....two things you never want to see being made sausage and law...this kind of qualfies as in that genre.

Leave it to you, Bobby, to put your unique spin on things!

To quote: "Accordingly, land development regulations (LDRs) typically have at least a strong core of regulating to prevent harm. The following are examples of some of the harms that LDRs may be intended to prevent:◾Nuisances ◾ Economic harm◾ Harm to public health◾ Visual impacts◾ Noise impacts◾ Smoke/Pollution◾ Vibrations◾ Odors◾ Light – whether blockage of sunlight or the intrusion of artificial light◾ Unsafe situations – whether in structural safety, hazards, or from crime...regulate the actual causes of the harm, not resulting harm. Ex. of regulating results, rather than cause-regulating to prevent negative impacts on property values. Preventing harm to property values, the question to be answered is what factors would cause the harm to the property values? What is it that future purchasers wouldn’t want around. Factors (such as noise, smells, or intrusive lights) should be what the regulations address, not the end result of lower property values. An attempt to regulate the results rather than the cause is likely to end in vague, inconsistently applied, or ineffective regulations." My opinion is we all need to read our regulations and make sworn statements how this project violates regulation(s) point by point. I believe we have a breakdown in the process (the regulations). This is a huge test case to find out we may have a problem and whether our regulations are in the best interest of the public. Regulation/law keeps the public from harm.

This seems to me to have all the hallmarks of some shady, back room deal that just has to be pushed by the residents of SH. And to an even greater degree, I am concerned that our City Commission is so quick to disregard or dismiss the clearly stated and expressed wishes of many of the residents they are supposed to represent. The last vote was 6-1 in favor of the proposal. Perhaps Monday night would be a good time for another demonstration or protest, in hopes of reminding our City Commissioners that they are tasked with representing Safety Harbor residents and the best interests of Safety Harbor, and this clearly is not accomplished with a nearly unanimous vote in spite of widespread objection.

Graham, with all due respect I can understand you not liking the proposal, but I can't understand how you can say this is a shady back room deal and the city leaders haven't listened to the residents. The only reason this deal hasn't already been approved is due to the fact that the commission HAS listened to the residents, delaying a decision until new proposals were brought forth and the proper procedures were followed over and over again. In fact the deal appeared to be dead in the water when the commission told the Richman Group they could not agree to pass the first concept due to the density and building heights. The developer then went and changed their plan, even though they had previously stated they would not come off the original specs. While I'm not denying there are city officials who want the deal done, to say they are not listening and trying to railroad this deal through is simply not the case. I've covered county and city government elsewhere in the area and I can tell you in many other places, this deal probably would have been done a long time ago under the original proposal. Just because a decision doesn't go the way some people feel it should does not mean those in charge are not listening and taking into account the opinions of the residents.

With All due respect, I think it is time to accept the inevitable Richman Group will be building the rental apartments so in plain view of this I feel The Richman Group needs to consider having in house law enforcement & auxiliary fire department on Firmenich property along with a school to be built at the Messenger Property which is what it used to be anyway so that way home owners property taxes are not affected by paying higher taxes when this is completed as for the argument of the buildings being higher or lower I believe it is more suitable as a sentiment cause most of us are not fond of something looming over our cozy & comfy home, we all would prefer to enjoy nature more than bricks so in light of all that's happening with this unpleasant circumstance maybe something can be worked out to ease this situation, negative energy never helps anybody it is a 2 way street each party gives a little which goes a long way ;)

Also there are no other 3 or 4 story buildings in SH but the Crispers building, the SPA and the hospital. We are asking to keep the samll town feel we have come to enjoy which makes this city different than all the others in the county. Keep the development in line with all the others. Why should this area be different?? We put forth these suggestions to all the commissioners and have largely be ignored. We are willing to work with the city and the developers, we know that something will get built but why not work at compromise that benefits all. I believe it doen't say anywhere in the city charter, the comprehensive plan or the land use plan that the city is obligated to a developer making a profit or to a seller of a pc of land to make money. It does say the city is to; Strive to attain a land use configuation that is COMPATIBLE with existing development and to Enhance the city's open space character. These should be done in the overall publics best interest

To be clear, does anyone know whether the Richman Group project will qualify for property tax exemptions, seeing as they are offering affordable housing?

Affordable? Did they confirm what the rent will be? I think it makes a difference!

I think there is a lot of misinformation being tossed about on this. Some folks have the idea that this will be "affordable housing". Richman Group said it will be "market rate" they plan on rents ranging from $1000 to $1500. That all depends on the market when this project would be completed in 10 years. One fear is that if they can't fill the buildings they can shift 51% of ownership to their non profit and avoid the taxes, or apply for Section 8 and have the state subsidize the apartments. Again they can avoid the taxes. Make no mistake they are profit driven as well as they should be, they are a business. If you have done any research on this company you will see that they have done this in the past on some of their other projects. At the meetings they only show us their successes not their failures, that would be counterproductive to their mission. There are no guarantees!!! I am not sure who would want to rent an apartment for $1000 or more a month for the view of SR590 and the Quonset Hut building next door to a yard waste facility. Their contention is that it’s a place to hang your hat not a home so the renters won’t care about the view or the congestion they have to endure to get in and out. I just see it as too many things can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong….That is all besides the fact that the project will pave over wetlands, so you critters get out, we don’t need no stinkin birds, rabbits, otters, armadillos, shall I go on???