If it isn't pro-airport development, I want it taken out and shot immediately
City Hall has turned into the White House with one clear difference. Up in Washington, it's terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, and if it isn't terrorism, label it as terrorism and shoot it. Here in Venice, it's airport development, airport development, airport development. If it isn't airport development, report it to Homeland Security as terrorism.

Perhaps the most eloquent voice to date comes from Hugh Laubis, a 12-year resident of Venice  who is suddenly finding himself at the forefront in questioning the city about the wisdom of building a mecca on the south end of the island in Venice.

On April 7, Laubis wrote the open letter to council below, a scathing indictment of city hall's failure to listen to its citizenry. Laubis' letter just didn't come out of nowhere, however. He's been doing his homework, writing to and talking with city officials over the past month in an effort to try to come to grips with why city hall keeps pushing this debacle onto residents while seemingly ignoring the huge outcry of protest over the process.

Below is Laubis' letter of April 7. Below that is a series of emails between Laubis and City Manager Marty Black that gives insight into why Laubis has come to his conclusions that our municipal government has become a hijacked plane taken over by "crony lawyers" armed with fat checks and ceremonial shovels.

Perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of this whole dialog is in the last email on this page where Black drags the rotting carcass of his predecessor, George Hunt, into the discussion, this in order to deflect part of the dialog into the 'I can't talk about that' zone. Black states that the VGA might sue the city and that their attorney, Dan Boone, has threatened to drag Hunt back into town for a tell-all sworn testimony Q&A session.

Hunt is a doomsday button that will never be pressed. Black knows it as there is more than ample evidence floating around to shred Hunt's credibility on the witness stand on almost every aspect of this situation (the chain of events surrounding how Hunt kept the city attorney and council in the dark about the existence of the FAA Notice of Investigation document is just one example). Boone would have to be a total idiot to bring Hunt back into town. Doomsday button, can of worms, Pandora's box -- all valid metaphors for what could happen if Hunt appeared and solemnly swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Has Boone threatened to bring Hunt back into town? Oh yes, and now Black has confirmed it. Does anyone take Boone seriously on the matter? Only those with a serious meth or cocaine habit.

When Black brings up the specter of Hunt, Black is apparently counting on Laubis' ignorance of past events. That was a mistake on Black's part and probably led directly to Laubis' conclusion that the public's voice is considered inconsequential in this mad land rush.

April 07, 2007
From: Hugh Laubis

Open Letter to Venice City Council

 

This letter is sent with a tone of sadness and disappointment to Mayor Hammett and all current and past council members of our fair city. During the last 12 years of our association with the city of Venice it has become evident to us that you all believe your jurisdiction ends at the Venice city boundaries and the population within. Sorry to be the one to inform you, but it is bigger than that.

 

The City / County boundaries of greater Venice are a jagged mess thanks to your years of wheeling and dealing special deals and exceptions with the development community. The last election should have been message number one that we don't like it! And, whether it suits you or not, everyone with a Venice zip code is a legitimate member of our fair city. You have a fiduciary responsibility to each and every one of us.

 

As stewards, you have been entrusted with Venice's family jewels, the island, its character, beaches and unique home town America atmosphere. With this airport/golf course deal, it appears you are proceeding down a path to muck-up its character and sell out the jewels to the special interest developers. They along with their crony lawyers are in your face day after day waving their fingers at you and intimidating your decision process while we Venice citizens, who have entrusted you with the preservation of this unique place, are carrying on with our daily lives while  your sell out process takes place. We don't have the organization or financial where with all it takes to out shout and out maneuver these special interests and as a result all of Venice citizens will lose and make no bones about it, this will be entirely your fault! This will be your legacy!

 

It is about time you pay attention to and care more about us Venetians rather than the people who will boat in, fly in or drive in from around the world to visit the Naples North / Sarasota South you are attempting to create. We beg you not to invite these special interests into our parlor to ruin our way of life. Your mission for us, your constituents, is to prevent this from happening! Big is not always better!

 

As we speak, the line in the sand is being drawn. Speak up, each of you! Tell us now, which side are you on?

 

Hugh Laubis

Venice City Resident

Trail of emails
Powerful stuff? You bet. But Laubis isn't speaking from ignorance. Here's the trail of emails that led Laubis to his above conclusions.

03/16/07
From: Hugh Laubis

Marty,
Sorry to bother you on this subject but I would like an answer straight from horses mouth.

Is what was reported in the Gondolier about a lease sale really possible? If yes, Is it going to happen without citizens approval?

Thanks,
Hugh Laubis

03/16/07
From: Marty Black

All of the city's existing airport leases require that the city council approve any assignment or transfer of a lease. No one has requested an assignment at this point; at least three of the firms that are interested in making improvements at the airport have included the existing golf course lands as part of their proposal and the city has taken no action to approve of any changes.

Prior to city council consideration of any such proposal, it is required to be reviewed by city staff and the Airport Advisory Board at a public meeting.

I have attached a memo I sent out earlier today to city council on the process I have recommended for moving forward with consideration of these proposals so that you have some more information. My personal perspective is that as the city council considers these proposals, it is vital to retain the course for public play and that city residents and property owners be afforded reduced rates. I also believe that any proposal should be subject to a public design process and that ultimately the city will need to move forward with one of the proposals to remain consistent with the requirements imposed by the FAA - the final project needs to reflect the input and values of the community in any case.
I'm not sure of this helps make the picture any clearer - so please let me know if you need more information.

Thanks!

Marty Black
City Manager

03/16/07
From: Hugh Laubis

Thanks, your candid perspective is always a pleasure.

Hugh

04/02/07
From: Hugh Laubis

Marty,
Just a couple of questions on the airport proposals again.

1) Is there something mandatory from another agency like FAA that is forcing us to consider activity on all these properties?

2) Why has the council not defined a position of what the people would like to do with what pieces of the subject property and stated that any proposals coming forth cannot address activity in certain areas or they will categorically be reject. Or this or that piece of land is not open to proposals?

3) Why doesn't the council make any sale of lease subject to City's right of first refusal?

I suppose the subject gets down to citizens against developers, lawyers, realtors and Chamber and other business interests. Unless council gets to representing the people who put them in power, (unless all the interests did) we are lost. Chamber needs to show the citizens their support.

Thanks again,
Hugh Laubis

04/02/07
From: Marty Black

See my notes to the questions I can answer...I'm in the middle of preparing some materials for the local papers so you get an advance look before I'm finished...

Is there something mandatory from another agency like FAA that is forcing us to consider activity on all these properties? Yes, both FDOT and FAA require that the city demonstrate that it is obtaining fair market rents for available property at the airport.  This is a federal and state policy aimed at reducing their subsidy of local aviation. We are also subject to an agreement with the FAA that places additional burdens as a result of past actions by the city that were deemed to have not met this standard. It is also advisable to increase airport revenues so that additional neighborhood compatibility mitigation efforts can be funded, including the option for a local control tower.

Why has the council not defined a position of what the people would like to do with what pieces of the subject property and stated that any proposals coming forth cannot address activity in certain areas or they will categorically be reject. Or this or that piece of land is not open to proposals? The city already has done that through our existing airport master plan as accepted by FAA and FDOT.  The pending update to that plan has been a matter of public review during the course of the past year and is expected to be formally amended later this spring. The existing master plan already calls for a marina, restaurant and other aviation compatible uses, together with new hangar and related aviation uses.

Why doesn't  the council make any sale of lease subject to City's right of first refusal? The city does have review and approval of any assignment through existing leases.  We do not, however, have the cash reserves in place to buy-out leases - that would take a substantial increase in property taxes to generate the anticipated costs. The public and overall community voice at most city council and community meetings has been aimed at reducing taxes and that is reflected in the latest proposals by the state legislature that will make that prospect more onerous. From my past experiences,  I would estimate that to buy-out existing leases would be over the $3 to 5 million level - that would take a doubling of property tax in the city and I do not see that as a viable strategy.

From my perspective, I would anticipate that any new lease or development at the airport would have to meet several conditions prior to my recommendation as city manager. These include:

1. Public boat/marina access with priority given to Venice residents and property owners for slip and storage rental (this has been a top priority in the City Council strategic plan since 2001).
2. Economic impacts that clearly demonstrate a net benefit to the city and airport.
3. Limits to development intensity (no more than 2-5 stories in height for any one building).
4. Require that all infrastructure costs to serve the project be borne by the tenant and none by the city or airport.
5. In the event that any proposal contemplates changes to the existing golf course, that Venice residents and property owners receive a substantial discount to greens fees and cart rentals (that means 25-30% discount from my perspective).
6. Tenant to be responsible for constructing primary access from US Business 41 and demolition of the circus arena.
7. Reservation of aviation lease areas adjoining runways and taxi ways (already reflected in the master plan).
8. Any changes to golf course would be subject to meeting Audubon design standards.
9.Tenant to include conference center and meeting space for public rental and use if a hotel is proposed.
10. Tenant to be willing to undertake a public charette design process to ensure that community compatibility concerns are addressed.

While there continues to be strong rumors in the community that an agreement has been reached between some parties to purchase the golf course lease, the city still has not received any notice or request to consider approval of a lease assignment.

Please also be aware that a year ago the City Attorney advised the City Council that the Venice Golf Association had engaged legal counsel and that the city may face a lawsuit from them relating to alleged promises made by the former city manager [George Hunt] and mayor [Dean Calamaras] during the course of securing increases to their rent to meet FAA objections. The City Attorney also advised that we should anticipate that the former city manager would appear as a witness in support of the Venice Golf Association. For this reason, I have been advised by the City Attorney that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on this aspect.

Ultimately, the existing golf course improvements will be impacted as a result of coming into compliance with FAA safety standards (removal of the driving range, fence moves and a series of other changes are anticipated to be made requirements of federal funding to rehabilitate runway 4/22), so the existing facilities will need some modifications and re-design.

I hope that this helps shed some additional light and remain open to any other questions you may have.

Thanks!

Marty Black
City Manager

John Patten is the editor and publisher of Venice Florida! dot com and had previously worked in broadcasting for over 12 years. He can also be incredibly rude at times.