Venice Florida! dot com
Message Board

Re: Bank foreclosing on Renaissance

From: longtime resident
SBP: 12
Remote Name: 68.56.147.74
Date: 12/03/08
Time: 09:00 AM

Comments

Look back at the pre-annexation agreements for all the Waterford developments and others from the early 90's through about 98. There were many such conditions in those agreements. The only condition I can remember that did not get fulfilled was the "affordable housing" commitment from the first annexation agreement. I don't blame Miller for this though, as he kept coming to council and asking to postpone doing the housing to the next annexation agmt and the next and so on and the council under Graser pretty much said "yes" to everyone. I pressed this issue as far as I could, but majority rules and I was always outvoted. I am not denying that things changed radically and the city charted a new course where they sent out letters to most all adjacent property owners literally encouraging them to annex into the city. I thought it was nuts as they did a complete turnaround and acted like those asking to annex were doing the city a favor by coming in, whereas formerly the city expected anyone seeking annexation to "offer some benefit" to the current residents via their annexation. I don't remember all the exact "extractions" required from Miller in those earlier times, but I seem to recall land for a fire station, park land I am sure I remember and the improvement of Pinebrook Road also. It has been too long for me to recall the exact details but there were many such conditions, including signalization (installing a traffic light) at one intersection. In those days, the city also required the developers to pay the cost of running utility lines (sewer and water) to their developments. I don't know if that policy changed entirely but I do know that at least on one occasion I was told of, the city bore this cost. That was not what was usual and customary in the 80's and 90's.