Clermont counting on pixie dust in annexation plan

Orlando Sentinel.com
April 2, 2010

Oh, my, how stories do change.


A meeting this week between Clermont City Council members and Lake County commissioners found the "facts" considerably changed since the city first laid claim to property along the U.S. Highway 27 corridor south, nearly to Four Corners.

 

Council members always have said they want the property for economic development – but they have to get it before a developer-imposed November deadline, and they have to zone it to allow new homes to "support" this myriad of jobs supposedly stampeding into town. Those last two parts didn't set well with citizens who really don't care what developers think and who can't sell homes in a market drowning in inventory.

So what happened in the last four weeks since the proposal to annex nearly 11,000 acres arose? And how did it happen? Have minds changed? Have circumstances changed?

Or – and this is more likely – have Clermont council members been taking heat from the public and decided to cave in at least a little to what the public wants rather than stand so firmly with their friends in the chamber of commerce and the development business?

The smart bet is on the last choice.

Council members initially rushed to comply with the wishes of developers and take in several huge tracts of land before the public gets to vote on Amendment 4 – the Hometown Democracy amendment – in November. The proposal would allow citizens to vote on changes to a city or county's land use plan, giving them direct control over whether massive housing developments could be built in rural areas, worsening expensive urban sprawl.

‘Scared' of amendment

When council members first considered taking in the massive amounts of property, they vowed not to approve new cookie-cutter developments. In a February meeting, however, they acknowledged there would have to be some new homes – just to "support" that work center – maybe more than 640 houses for each 1,800 acres. Sheesh. As if people can't drive five miles to work.

During the same meeting, in which the annexations first were discussed publicly, Clermont City Manager Wayne Saunders told council members there was "a very short time frame" to complete the annexations because owners of most of the properties want to get a land use in place before voters get to decide on the amendment. This was not discussed quietly. It was no secret, and Saunders warned council members several times that everything must move quickly.

Later in the meeting, Saunders said of developers, "They're all scared No. 4 will pass."

While council members never voted to jolly things along, they all hopped into the hourlong discussion of how to make this happen before November deadline. There wasn't the slightest question of whether they should take in the property, whether it was good for the city or what the citizens who live in the community might want.

 

On Monday, council members who met in joint session with county commissioners insisted that the rush had nothing at all to do with Amendment 4. Oh, no, no, no. Huh? These meetings are taped, remember?

Asked about the change, Clermont council member Robert Thompson said people assumed his intentions were to help the developers beat Amendment 4, but that was not the case.

By stating on Monday night that the timing of Amendment 4 doesn't matter to him, Thompson said he was trying to prove that he just wants to create economic development, not help developers build more housing.

"OK, fine. Wait until after Amendment 4, and then we'll do whatever we have to do. This will make people understand that I'm not some slimy back-room-dealing guy," he said.

Still, Thompson got into a snip-a-thon with County Commissioner Elaine Renick when he demanded that Lake lift the "rural protection area" designation from the property. They said no.

The protection area seemed to give developers, their lawyers and landowners the willies, even though it has only one serious practical effect: It keeps developers from constructing roads wider than two lanes. The point is, after all, to keep the land mostly rural, thus the moniker "Rural protection area."


But the label carries a psychological jolt, too, Thompson argued on Wednesday. The state, which has to approve big land changes, "looks at it in a much different way."

He said the city is likely to be turned down if it wants to do economic development on any of the property carrying the rural protection area designation. Renick said that's absurd. A thoughtfully planned office park can be environmentally sensitive and preserve the rural nature of the land.

And on the issue of new homes in the area, council members figuratively threw up their hands. If people don't want houses, then the city won't approve any more houses than the current zoning of one for every five acres, they said.

It's not about houses. It's not about helping developers.

Then, what is it about?

Council members insist it's about jobs, but the arguments are so illogical that a thoughtful person must question the council's real motive for insisting on claiming this land now, when there are no plans or even whispered proposals to build anything. It's not like the land can't be annexed later, if and when economic development does come to town.

Council member Ray Goodgame, however, argued that the property is needed first. He used as an illustration a remark made by Ray Gilley, president and CEO of the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission, at a recent Kiwanis Club lunch in Clermont.

Goodgame said that he asked Gilley why the EDC didn't "shop Google" to Clermont. Goodgame quoted Gilley as saying that the city didn't have a corporate office park and so couldn't compete.

Silly argument

The big project in the works by the Internet giant is called Google Communities, a test of ultra-high-speed Internet using fiber-optic technology that the company plans for a number of cities around the country.

A spokesman for Gilley said that the EDC leader did indeed talk with Goodgame but was referring to Google as an analogy for any Internet-based company, not in regard to the Communities project, which she acknowledged does not require a corporate park.

Either way, Goodgame's argument is silly. Internet-based companies do not need thousands of acres to operate. Clermont persuaded the county to remove the rural protection area designation from about 5,000 acres, and now it wants to lift it from another 5,700. The largest office development in Central Florida similar to what Goodgame says he wants is International Corporate Park at 2,368 acres in east Orange County. The amount of property Clermont wants to put into play is laughable considering Clermont's size and what it has to offer big companies.

Hundreds of communities around the country are aggressively seeking to be part of the Google Communities program on their own. Why didn't Goodgame lead the charge to put Clermont in the running instead of complaining that the EDC failed to do so? (The agency's spokeswoman said the EDC didn't "shop" Google to any one community – it is simply supporting the efforts of all locals who have applied.)

Anyone who bothered to read the Google application would know that it asks such as questions as: How many miles of fiber optics does your community have? How many miles of underground conduit is available? How many utility poles are in your community? Who owns them? What is the cost per connection of hanging fiber optic cable on them?

The questions are about the extent, soundness and ownership of infrastructure needed to cheaply operate a fiber-optics network. There is not a single question about whether the community has an office park – or even any office space at all.

First things first

Attracting economic development is about defining what companies are a good fit for what the community can offer, then aggressively marketing the community. Economic development is not about annexing thousands of acres of empty property for some distant fairy-company that might some day blow in on a wave of pixie dust.

Leesburg has the idea. It went after the Google Communities project with a vengeance without a single thought to what the EDC might do for it. Leesburg boasts 185 miles of fiber optic, including a bunch in Clermont, where it serves the schools.

It does not, however, serve Clermont because as recently as 18 months ago the city rejected an offer from Leesburg to provide the service at a cut rate.

You want to get on board the Internet train? Then you'd best come to realize this is not about acres of land and buildings the size of Mars for manufacturing goods. That business left the United States for China some years ago. It's about smaller, more specialized operations. It's about technology companies who want a dynamic quality of life and excellent schools for their employees. It's about finding the niche company that is a fit, not attracting the Lockheed Martins of the world, which aren't moving anywhere and certainly aren't coming here if do move.

Clermont is a great place to live with a lot to offer. Getting into a bitter disagreement with county commissioners over hogging up 5,700 more acres when the county has just opened up 5,000 for development is bad public policy.

Develop the first chunk, and then let's see what you've accomplished for the community.

Lauren Ritchie can be reached at Lritchie@orlandosentinel.com. You may leave her a message at 352-742-5918. Her blog is online at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/laurenonlake