Editorial | Time to stop the public input charade
A handful of residents of Entrada, a community off the Del Prado extension in the north Cape, turned out Wednesday to ask the Cape Coral City Council to reconsider plans to build 40-foot water towers and other utility infrastructure in the preserve behind their homes.
They said they were unaware that the Yellow Fever Creek Preserve acreage owned by the city would be more than the “passive park” promised.
We agree with the city that residents should have been aware, at least since 2020. That’s when Council agreed the city would carve out about 14 acres of the 197.6-acre environmentally sensitive tract for a utility project it didn’t want to put on nearby properties the city also owns because, well, that would make it hard to attract development to those marketable sites.
City officials also are likely correct that discussion started years earlier — at least among staff — in 2008.
What they neglected to say Wednesday is that those discussions were not part of the public input sessions while the city was “selling” a $60 million general obligation bond to the voters so it could fund its proposed parks master plan of which the Yellow Fever Creek Preserve is a part.
As The Breeze outlined in a March 6, 2020, editorial headlined “Bait. And Switch,” there was much citizen input as to what residents wanted in the promised parks.
Participant priorities for the land abutting Lee County’s 333.8-acre Yellow Fever Creek Preserve were more hiking trails, an equestrian trail, a dog park, disc golf and space for primitive camping.
The city’s one-word-exercise for the preserve came back with “Natural.” “Unobtrusive.” “Quiet.” and “Inviting.”
This input was converted into concept plans which were not only posted on the city website, but plastered across a GO bond billboard at the site.
City staff, meanwhile, was simultaneously working on plans to put the municipal utility project in the northeast corner of the park.
The project was not only not shown on the concept plans but was not part of the public input sessions on the park.
In fact, good luck deciphering the whereabouts of the utility component on the “FINAL site plan” for Yellow Fever Creek Preserve currently posted on the city’s parks projects website.
So yes, the residents protesting that “they did not know” are likely correct, too.
A couple of things.
The city of Cape Coral has much going for it. It does many, many things well.
Among them, the city’s Special Events Division sets the bar for community events.
Not only are they some of the most-attended celebrations in Southwest Florida, most are free.
Public safety — the Cape Coral Police and Fire Departments — are model agencies.
The city’s environmental efforts?
We’d say “what efforts,” but the city can trot out its have-tos and its must-dos, its ordered compliance efforts and its tree bank.
But when it comes to proactive protection of city waters, wetlands and green space, Cape Coral gets zero kudos.
The philosophy of what is now packaged as “highest and best use” — by definition the most profitable use of any particular parcel for developers and city coffers alike — is the bedrock upon which the Cape was literally built, has grown, and continues to grow.
It is, in fact, the philosophy cited Wednesday night when residents asked why the city rejected nearby sites — which were neither dedicated park land nor near residences — for the utility infrastructure.
This disconnect between embedded city ideology and resident input related to development and existing greenspace, parks, waterfront and environmental concerns is the greatest source of controversy in Cape Coral.
From the redevelopment of the Yacht Club and Jaycee Park to the removal of the Chiquita Lock, the initial reception to pending development plans for Redfish Point, and the city’s plans to put utility infrastructure in a designated preserve, development trumps “Natural.” “Unobtrusive.” “Quiet.” and “Inviting.”
Every time.
Is this the city’s intent?
Or more importantly, is it what those who live here, work here, pay taxes here, want?
We don’t think pro-growth and pro-green initiatives are mutually exclusive.
We do think, though, that it’s time for City Council to determine — and share — the nexus at which progress and projects of public concern meet.
Inform the public — and staff — where you, as a body, see any intersection.
Be the council to end the public-input charade while “highest and best use” — sometimes perceived as “highest and worse use” from a public perspective — continues to be the determining factor behind closed doors.
Tell us where you — and we, the public — stand.
Breeze editorial