Do Unto Others

By Bill Yanger

So, it is done.

The votes are in, the people have spoken and life in paradise rolls along. And, as uncomfortable as the blogged rhetoric and published opinion may have become in the weeks leading up to the election, the inevitability of the current debate over this little city’s future should have come as a surprise to no one. These issues were fought and decided in beach communities all over Florida years ago and the results are self-evident (i.e. St. George Island v. Treasure Island; Fernandina Beach v. Clearwater Beach) as each community reaped what it had sown. Since the zoning and land use brawls of the early 1970’s Anna Maria City has historically escaped developer madness. A combination of that enviable foresight by leaders years ago, unaggressive and, frankly, disinterested developers and an overall lassez fairre attitude by all of us who felt our secret would remain just that, allowed us to go blissfully about our island lives without much consternation or divisiveness. But that could not last forever and the recent election has become a sharply focused and inevitable referendum on development versus status quo; the din and congestion of the new and the spiffier versus the calm and solace of the known and the comfier; those maneuvering to accelerate and benefit from an influx they say is inescapable versus those who fear having the influx and its debris parked in their front yard while the wedding singer warbles through “You Light Up My Life” at his third reception of the day from Wedding World down the beach.

Like the shrill bark of a yippy dog in a tiny room, the small-town press characteristically chose to focus its op-ed on personalities and not issues, spewing lazy derision but little true analysis or thoughtful criticism. And that derision became contagious as honest disparity of opinion between neighbors was often mistaken for a personal affront. Though it was often unwarranted or unfair, such criticism and its ensuing ugliness became a part of the public discourse, staining the community fabric - perhaps indelibly. Let’s hope not.

Regardless of how one perceives this election (Victory or defeat? Ratification or nullification?) and the opportunities it affords (Rapprochement or rearmament?), the elephant is still in the room and it may be instructive to look at why the lines in this debate have been so deeply drawn. After all, the PAR principals are your neighbors and friends. They are good people with just as much love for this community as the next guy. Few can boast of the contributions, both commercial and altruistic, that the Chiles family has historically provided and continues to provide Anna Maria Island. The Colemans have, it appears, genuinely fallen in love with this village and have become visible and vocal cheerleaders for its charms and way of life. The Thrashers too have caught the Anna Maria bug and do not appear to be going anywhere anytime soon. PAR’s presence and influence in Anna Maria’s future is a reality. Get used to it. Here’s why:

To say these folks have a vested interest in this town is understatement of epic proportions. Take a look. From the base of the City Pier down Pine Avenue to the high tide mark (literally) on the Gulf, Manatee County Property Appraiser records confirm that fifteen properties are owned either by PAR itself, by one or more of its principals themselves, by various trusts and family entities of one or more of the principals or by whimsically named LLCs like Nut Fish, Gingerfish and Pineapple Fish (not to be confused with Pineapple Corner LLC owned by the Hunts and the subject of recent speculation related to PAR and a felled Poinciana tree) owned and/or controlled by one or more of the principals. At least two of the Pine Avenue properties are owned by LLCs which are owned by another LLC which is owned or controlled by one or more of the principals of PAR (yes, its complicated but maybe that’s the point). In addition to direct ownership, PAR’s website touts plans that include an additional six parcels contiguous to or along Pine Avenue and therefore one may assume PAR’s control of these parcels through any number of legal devises. Remember, this is only the properties on or contiguous to Pine Avenue and does not include a number of other properties located elsewhere on the island.

To place the scope of this control in perspective, take a drive, a bike ride or a stroll down Pine Avenue from the City Pier to the Gulf (just be mindful of parked cars backing into the street…). Heading west, eliminate the Roser Church property and its parking lot across Pine, the condos behind Roser, the Post Office plaza, the City-owned historical society and its adjacent parcel and the City Hall property. That’s a good one-third of Pine Avenue that is essentially unavailable for current development. Then realize that as many as twenty-one parcels of the remaining two-thirds of Pine have some link to PAR and/or its principals. They control the vacant North Bay lots north of Pine to the hump-back bridge, every available corner lot on Pine save a few, have all but one available lot in the 500 block, half of the 200 and 300 blocks, bookend the south side of the 400 block and own the sand on the beach-end of Pine down to the waterline. That, folks, is a whole lotta land.

And that “whole lotta land” translates into a whole lotta dough. According to Property Appraiser records the aggregate appraised value of the twenty-one properties is $8,115,140. The parcels, again according to Property Appraiser records, reportedly generate $138,903.61 in ad valorem tax revenue each year. Keep in mind that $138,903.61 is more than 11% of Anna Maria City’s ad valorem revenue according to its published 2008-2009 budget. Yes, eleven percent. No wonder PAR wants a seat at the table. Wouldn’t you? Is it any wonder they push so hard?

Fortunately, while many of the electorate live by the First Golden Rule (“Do Unto Others….”) this election has eliminated any immediate hope PAR may have of instituting the Second Golden Rule…“He with the Gold Makes the Rule.” But they are not going away. Why should they? Such a significant stake in the game requires a vigilant persistence. It also requires patience, patience few would have while shelling out $140,000 each year to provide the City with 11% of its tax revenue; a City, mind you, that just slammed the door in their face. But they’ve made their bed.

So am I anti-PAR? Of course not. I admire PAR as I admire all entities or individuals with the resources and gumption to pursue the American Dream of prosperity and self-reliance. They just need to accept the rules of the road, stay in their lane and do good things. Do I think they are in serious need of some public relations defibrillation? Absolutely. As I have expressed to Mr. Coleman, I am not sure that playing hide-n-seek with layers of LLCs is the best way to allay the fears of those who are certain PAR is bent on the destruction of the way of life as we know it. Responding to thoughtful criticism tit-for-tat ad nauseum in blogs and publications just focuses attention on the division instead of seeking a solution with the positive. Banging one’s head against the wall achieves just two things: a dented wall and a bloody head. Neither solves anything. And I think PAR now realizes that. At least they should.

What then does one say to those staunch PAR detractors, the wounded and unconvinced? Well, after the sweet buzz of victory comes the nagging hangover of reality. As I said, the elephant is still in the room and with apologies to the mannered and proper amongst us, President Lyndon Johnson’s infamous reference to J. Edgar Hoover seems apropos, paraphrased of course: “...I’d rather have ‘em in the tent peeing out than outside the tent peeing in.” You get the gist. Learn to co-exist because they pay their way and they are here to stay. They’re good folks with valuable resources, enviable talent and a shared love of our town.

They just need a little more guidance and a little less hubris.

And reading the rule book would be nice too.


© 2009 William L. Yanger