Apparently when I'm wrong, I'm really, really wrong
I have been arguing for over a month now that the city's fight with the county over provisions in the Joint Planning Agreement is tantamount to using public funds for private purposes.

That the city attorney, members of council, and the developer's attorney all disagree with me comes to me as some, no, and no surprise, respectively.

I am apparently missing their point. But let me get back to that in a minute.

For those unfamiliar with the story so far, here it is in a very simplified, almost primer, nutshell: At issue is a residential development on the north end of the city with the current project name of Bella Citta. There are some density issues that a neighboring residential community has taken strong opposition to. Sorrento Ranches, a community/neighborhood with far lesser density, wants no part of this new development and is arguing with both the city and the county that the density of proposed housing is far too great for what is in existence in the area. Naturally Jeff Boone, attorney for Bella Citta, disagrees -- that's his job.

Further background noise: The county and the city have signed a pact/contract called the Joint Planning Agreement, which basically states that land newly annexed into the city from the county will adhere to county zoning standards. That contract was signed earlier this year.

The county is so far siding with the owners and residents of Sorrento Ranches in arguing for less density. The city is siding with Bella Citta. The county has invoked the mediation process, so now the city attorney and city staff will eat up a lot of time and money fighting the county attorney and staff at an approximately equal expense.

I am less concerned with the particulars of the arguments on either side, and here's why: both sides are making compelling arguments for their respective cases that appear to have a canceling effect. Sorrento Ranches and their attorney, Dan Lobeck, argue that Bella Citta is incompatible with the surrounding areas and will have the greatest density of any tract of land in that area, which is true. Lobeck calls it spot zoning, which he states is illegal in Florida.

Boone, in turn, argues that if you want to use the term spot zoning, then everything out there is spot zoned and that an equally logical sounding case can be made that Sorrento Ranches, with its less than 1 house per acre density, is incompatible with everything else that surrounds it.

If I was scoring a game, I'd give points to both sides based on those arguments.

My argument has been procedural -- that if we (the city) are fighting the county on Bella Citta LLC's behalf, they should be reimbursing us for the manpower and expenses incurred as they are the aggrieved party, not the city.

Virtually everyone disagrees with me. The big surprise was that even Bob Burrus, president of the Sorrento Ranches Homeowners Association, agreed with council on the matter. In a phone conversation with Burrus that took place after the taping of the video on this page, Burrus stated that City Attorney Bob Anderson was absolutely right, that the dispute at hand is between the city and the county and that Bella Citta is not a party in the matter.

When Burrus stated that to me, it threw me for a serious loop. You never want to think you're wrong and pride makes you never want to admit that you're wrong, but when you are getting hit from that many different angles, maybe it's time for a total reassessment.

So rather than take my usual line-in-the-sand provocative stance, here's the arguments by all parties from this past city council meeting. The arguments were spread out over the course of the meeting, so I've spliced them together to make the discussion coherent.

John Patten is the head of Web Operations for Creative Pages, and has worked in broadcasting for over 12 years. He can also be incredibly rude at times.