Unethical #4

This is the county's illustration of the Salerno Creek project in April 2021 -- PRIOR to Crowley's proposal to Sarah Heard to create a linear park along Salerno Creek. The original project aligned with the Salerno CRA Plan. A linear park does NOT. In fact, on Page 31 of the Port Salerno CRA Vision Plan, it says specifically that the retrofit area to improve drainage and water quality in the Manatee Pocket is NOT to become a park. It is to be considered a neighborhood amenity only.

Upland Buffer Concerns:

The Port Salerno CRA plan states there’s a required setback and a 25% upland buffer along Salerno Creek. Since that area is already protected as an upland buffer, what’s the benefit of purchasing it?

Property Value & Use:

Both appraisals indicate the highest and best use of the property is for commercial purposes, which is why the value is based on future commercial development — not green space.

Limited Commercial Land:

On page 82 in the CRA plan, it mentions that Salerno Road is primarily commercial in nature and essentially built out.

Is it really a good idea to remove what little commercial land is still available in the CRA, turn it into green space, and take it off the tax roll?

Setback Restrictions:

The actual creek already has a 25% buffer that can’t be built on or filled in (as one appraisal noted).

On page 102 of the CRA plan, it confirms the required 25% upland buffer and setback.

Retrofit Project Clarification:

On page 37 of the CRA plan, the Salerno Creek retrofit project is specifically described as being intended to relieve flooding and treat stormwater — not to be an active park space.

Additionally, on page 103, there’s mention that the post office parking lot and the creek require an 80-foot setback (a more definitive figure than 25%). If this setback applies to that parcel as well??, much of the low-lying area is already protected and can’t be built on. No need to purchase it.  Yes, I am beating a dead horse with this point!

Tax Base Impact: I think this should really resonate with the other commissioners.... They should be protecting taxpayers, not approving ways to unnecessarily increase our taxes. Removing this property from the tax rolls means the taxes will need to be made up somewhere else. How much tax benefit is the county taking away by removing property that can be commercially developed?   Again, the environmental benefit is already protected.  What really is the ultimate goal? 

Ultimately, if this property is removed from private ownership and placed in government hands, we lose valuable commercial land that would otherwise contribute to the tax base.  The appraisals demonstrate the highest and best use for the property is commercial development