Marco Island Planning Board to conduct public survey

Global warming has resulted in another hot debate, centered around the city’s future land use plan.

On Friday, the planning board heard a presentation from city planner, Kris Van Lengen, on the state’s latest requirement. Lengen explained that the city must provide a report to the sate that addresses global warming, along with other issues the city deems important.

The board determined that a key part of defining major planning issues for the report will come through a public survey.

“We need to define what are our major issues, vet them with the public as well as state agencies like DOT (Department of Transportation), the water management district and county school board,” explained Van Lengen.

The state requires the city to complete a planning report by October 2011.

Climate change is a major planning requirement that the state now requires all districts to address. Greenhouse gasses, ‘green’ building, sea level rise and hurricane readiness are all elements that will affect the future of Florida’s development, according to the state.

Board member Monte Lazarus questioned whether the report is a “make work” endeavor by the state. Member Bob Brown wanted to make sure the report would be a tool the city could use for its own purposes as well.

To that end, the board determined that a survey will go out to residents asking for input, including areas like public works, public safety, transportation.

In other business, the planning board approved the name Midtown District for the re-development area designated for commercial properties and residences around Elkcam Circle.

Ruth McCann, executive director of Marco Island Civic Association, spoke to the board to clarify MICA’s role as a civic association. Renters and business owners can also become members of MICA, which holds deed restrictions on many Island properties.

The planning board has asked MICA to clarify the differences between the land development code and MICA’s deed restrictions.

© 2010 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 8

ajm3s writes:

"Climate change is a major planning requirement that the state now requires all districts to address. Greenhouse gasses, ‘green’ building, sea level rise and hurricane readiness are all elements that will affect the future of Florida’s development, according to the state."

Another waste of government resources to address global warming.

I can understand Mr. van Lengen's issue with increased cost if Amendment 4 passes, but this global warning requirement is a state mandated exercise that is misguided and increases cost, as well. So we have two initiatives, one people generated the other government regulation generated both with costs associated. Now ask yourself, are you being represented or simply regulated in this state, or somewhere in between. Have the scales shifted?

If you believe that cities can impact global warming with local policies, then I recommend that the State of Florida coerce the great nation of China and other states that generate electrical power from coal as well, in an effort to manage global warming, (assumes that global warming is from direct human activity).

Again, government making policy from a lack of peer reviewed scientific consensus. Regulators at this level are simply duped by activism without vision or foundation.

I would have suspected that back in the 1970's when global cooling was the rage, that Florida would be demanding then, as to how city planners were going to address the additional available land as the sea levels receded. Was it under the auspices of coastal management?

Folks wake up! This is absurdity again. Let us not pretend that climate change as a result of human influence or human planning can have an impact that justifies the effort in today's resource limited environment.

Bear in mind, if the folks wish to pursue green technology, or other initiatives, the free market can provide better choices without mandates. The free market will pursue opportunities in an environment of limited resources. In fact, the free market will perhaps widen the divide between China and the US if costs from labor and environmental regulation is the major influence in developing and manufacturing "green" technology, i.e. batteries, solar panels, florescent/mercury lighting. All consequences of pursuing "green" technology with government policy based on activists instead of innovators.

If we can simply engage in a discourse of the scientific literature, we will find that no consensus exists in the scientific community. The complexity is vast as is the universe.

captnjimbo writes:

I hope it is warmer this season than last...we could use some warming.

I hope the city simply refuses to do this.

Tinkers_Damn writes:

Are we being used by the County as they work on their next ICLEI merit badge?

RayPray writes:

"Al Gore saw that all. Now we pay the bill."

If big AL lost a few pounds and flew commercial, that would certainly have a measurable positive impact of this nation's carbon footprint.

RayPray writes:

Here is interesting take on GW:

blondie writes:

Globle Warming is nothing more than a phrase thought up by Al Gore. If you studied years in the past you will see that it cycles and changes throughout the years. It is not warming it is alternating. Thanks Al for the confusion.

ajm3s writes:

What really gets my goat, is that in this time of crisis, we need to focus with laser accuracy. So the state is burdening cities with useless planning for climate change. Let the cities manage there issues they uniquely plague them. The climate last time I checked is still of global proportions that require participation of countries.

The state of Florida needs a CAT scan to determine mental activity.

Is there a way Marco Island can be annexed from the county and state? The state is getting as wacky as the Federal government. The state policy makers must be hanging around with the wrong crowd, you know those Federal bullies with all there poor manners.

happyhorowitz34145 writes:

Van Lengren says "We need to define what are our major issues".
How about starting with the City council, then Rony Joel, then Chief Murphy, etc. etc.
You, Van Lengren, want to "vet them with the public"? The public has been vetting with the city for a long time and nobody in City Hall is listening.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.