Is 3H Ranch Pat Neal's Water-Loo?

Thoughts on Neal & Cohorts political puppetry, Sarasota's flood plains and overdevelopment

At Tuesday’s Sarasota County Commission meeting, Pat Neal’s proposal for 3H Ranch was presented. Pat Neal is entitled to build 386 homes on the 2,727 acres he bought east of I75. That’s about one home for every seven acres. Neal is not entitled to build more. He needs permission from Sarasota County. And Neal requested more - a lot more. A County Commission stacked with Neal puppets gave him what he wanted.

Pat Neal invests a lot of money in local campaigns and PACs to ensure a friendly County Commission. What is friendly? A County Commission that says yes to whatever he wants. So Neal gets special treatment. If you doubt that, have a look at the agenda item before Pat Neal’s 3H Ranch proposal. It is item 59: Brown Lane. The Sarasota County Commission was a different animal for that developer.

What did Neal want this time? Instead of building 386 dwellings, Neal requested approval to build 6,576 dwellings. And with no Commission debate, and very little discussion, Neal got approval to build those extra 6,190 units.

The current Puppet Commission expressed very little interest in questioning whether the massive Neal development proposal would cause more community flooding. They pivoted instead to praising a section of the proposal which would create some wildlife habitat. Their appalling lack of curiosity and oversight regarding the pressures of this development on our floodplains is a bad omen for Sarasota’s welfare in weathering future storms.

Some 2050 Plan history

From the very beginning, shortly after the 2050 plan was passed, Neal and his cohorts (like Rex Jensen) complained that the 2050 plan was not financially viable for them. Area advocates for smart growth have heard this complaint for many years from various developers and applicants. When asked to provide evidence for that lack of financial viability (or other objection offered) the applicants routinely say their business plans are proprietary. And then, routinely, the County Commission caves to their demand. This dynamic is a good indicator of a bought local government.

Under the original 2050 plan for development of Sarasota’s rural lands, a density increase like Neal’s request required 50% of the land to be open space, at least 15% of the project to be affordable housing, with interconnected streets (no cul de sacs) and walkable, mixed use development. Those original 2050 plan requirements were watered down or eliminated.

But the 2050 plan density bonuses? Those density bonuses remained.

According to the sole Commissioner who voted against approval, Mark Smith, Neal’s 3H Ranch proposal asked for 20% more density beyond the density bonus already permitted by a weakened Sarasota 2050 Plan. In exchange, residents aren’t getting more green space or open space. It’s simply a gift to Pat Neal.

Many Sarasota residents will recall how the the 2050 Plan was weakened in 2014, about a decade after it was approved. The effort to eliminate environmental and affordable housing guardrails was spearheaded by a small group of landowner/developers. The handful of landowner/developers driving the changes included: Rex Jensen, Randy Benderson, Carlos Beruff, Pat Neal, Jim Turner and John Cannon. They planned changes behind the scenes in 2013, and met with County Staff (Developers and their allies still have such special access today). Their 2050 Plan changes were unveiled and pushed through in 2014. They kept the density bonuses and eliminated the planning constraints (walkability, affordable housing, open space, mixed-use development) which made those density bonuses environmentally friendly and acceptable to the public.

Where was the floodplain discussion?

Community floodplain loss created by this Neal development doesn’t occupy appropriate space on the County Commission’s radar. Each acre of floodplain allows stormwater to slow down, spread and percolate through to the aquifer. According to FEMA, one acre of floodplain flooded 1 foot deep holds approximately 330,000 gallons of water. Where does that water go if an acre of floodplain is eliminated?

The County Commission agreed to reduce the open space requirement from 50% of the land to 33% of the land. That’s a 454 acre loss of open space (aka floodplain) eliminated at Pat Neal’s request. When you reduce open space, you risk an accompanying reduction in floodplain storm water capacity. It’s clear that those eliminated open spaces acres may have a reduced or eliminated capacity to carry floodwaters.

Many residents (especially those who were underwater) consider it unreasonable to greenlight thousands of new housing units and open space reductions given the flooding from Debby that Sarasota just experienced. And you don’t have to personally experience flooding in your own home to consider a robust reevaluation necessary. That’s what good neighbors do for each other.

At a minimum, responsible planning requires the County to bring in independent experts with no dog in this fight to evaluate the changing weather outlook (more storms, more rainfall) and Sarasota’s development plans. Recently updated FEMA maps reclassify more of Sarasota’s residential areas as flood prone. These changes and weather trends indicate MORE potential for flooding, not less. These dynamics must be reconciled with existing and future housing approvals. Instead of pausing and reevaluating, the County pushed on ahead with approving more that six thousand units of housing for Neal’s project. And the County’s characterization of Debby as a “historic” storm appears to be an effort to reassure the public that this kind of inland flooding is a one-off. It seems the County wants us their constituents to believe that flooding with Ian and the recent declaration of a flooding emergency in June didn’t happen. Sarasota residents know better.

This video shows the “historic” flooding that Sarasota residents experienced in JUNE. “Historic” flooding is happening an awful lot these days.

We didn’t hear any substantive discussion from County Commissioners about this topic. Have they thought about having FEMA take a look at the impact on Sarasota floodplains from this Neal project and other development approvals and applications on the books? Wouldn’t it make sense for the County to pause and reevaluate? Again, Sarasota County FEMA maps were changed this year, and more residential areas are now classified as flood prone. What’s going on? The County Commission is not looking to investigate. Heck, the County didn’t even notify residents affected by changed flood prone status. Why not? These failures reinforce the notion that the County Commission is working for Pat Neal and his cronies.

In a telling moment, a resident giving public input at the 3H Ranch hearing asked Pat Neal to “not take shortcuts” (he was concerned about traffic impacts). The speaker directed his comments to Mr. Neal, not to the County Commission. County Commission Mike Moran asked the speaker to direct his comments to the Commission, so the constituent made that change. But it appears that resident had it right the first time.

As one resident shared with the County Commission, they need to take care of the residents that are here now. One of the goals of the Sarasota 2050 Plan is to preserve and strengthen existing communities. Public health, safety and welfare is paramount. That includes protecting the property of residents who already live here. This duty must not be sacrificed at the altar of fluffing up Pat Neal’s profits. But that is exactly what the County Commission did on August 27th.

In addition to the reduction in open space, Pat Neal requested 16 exceptions to the UDC (Uniform Development Code). Many of those exceptions hacked away at environmental protection requirements. Exceptions to greenbelt requirements were granted from the required 500 ft wide greenbelt to 50 ft wide. Greenbelts connect wildlife habitat. 50 ft wide is a puny greenbelt.

In a particularly tacky move, Pat Neal subcontractors lined up to praise Neal. A pressure washing vendor, some irrigation vendors, some aluminum companies, at least one construction firm, a garage door company, a lake restoration company, a flooring company, an engineering firm - they sang Neal’s praises. Some of them bundled donations to Pat Neal’s preferred County Commission candidates. Some of them contributed large sums to PACs which were also funded by Neal. All of them spoke of the benefits of Neal Communities projects to their bottom line. None of them addressed the existing and potential harms to neighbors who are or will be absorbing the flooding, excess traffic and loss of quality of life from overdevelopment. What about those households, those neighbors, and their bottom lines?

How much is too much?

The daughter of a developer spoke of her father’s work building many housing projects in Sarasota. Her father would speak of the need for developers to be a good neighbor. Pat Neal may be a good client. Pat Neal’s subcontractors may want him to keep building as much as possible. Some realtors may be happy to ask the County approve all of Pat Neal’s projects.

But is Pat Neal a good neighbor?

Neal’s push for a massive housing project in the wake of the worst flooding Sarasota residents have seen, without an independent reevaluation of Sarasota’s current and future flooding risks - is outrageous. It is bad planning.

Finally, a resident of Rivo Lakes expressed concern at the hearing over how this proposed Neal development will impact his neighboring community. He shared that he expressed these concerns to Mr. Neal’s firm. He says he was told “We work with the people who work with us. If you don’t work with us, you won’t get anything.” This resident understood he was being warned not to interfere with the approval of the project - not to speak against it, not to make problems for Pat Neal. He told the County Commission he did not like being bullied. Did the County Commission acknowledge or respond to this constituent’s input? Nope. They ignored it.

When a developer warns a homeowner that their input to their local government will be understood as not working with them, and that the resident can expect nothing if they aren’t “working with” Pat Neal’s business, that isn’t the business practice of a good guy. Maybe a wise guy, but not a good guy.

One goal of the original Sarasota 2050 Plan is: direct population growth away from the flood plains. Four of our five County Commissioners are ignoring the current suffering and future risk to residents due to flooding. Clearly, they don’t care.

Wake up Sarasota. Take a page out of Manatee County’s book. Until we elect a majority of Commissioners who work for us, this corruption will persist.

If you like this content, please like, subscribe and share! Here is the whole public hearing on 3H Ranch: