HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 11 13 Anonymous Letter to Commissioner Benton (requested to be made a record)11/13/20
To members of the Winter Springs City Commission:
It seems that almost every candidate for City Council this year expressed concern if not disdain for the number of new
apartments in Winter Springs. Some of that may have been campaign rhetoric, and it may not result in much action.
Nonetheless, I would like to remind you all that while some concern may be warranted, an outright ban is uncalled for.
Apartments belong in our housing mix, for several important reasons.
Social
Virtually all families experience times in life when they live in an apartment, for all kinds of reasons. 1 lived in many,
starting in college, but also when moving to a new city, including during the time my house in Tuscawilla was under
construction. My former neighbor, a retired schoolteacher, recently moved to one and my daughter lives in one. I'm
sure you have lived in apartments too. Limiting the supply of apartments would mean relatively fewer renters could
live here as we grow. Would you deny your younger self, your adult child, or your downsizing parents the
opportunity to live in Winter Springs?
Growth in home prices has far exceeded inflation and wage growth, making purchasing a home less affordable for
families lacking a large down payment. One should not have to be wealthy to live in Winter Springs.
In 2018, the national household homeownership rate was 64.2%. A good portion of the rest live in apartments, it's
supply and demand.
Economic
• Apartment dwellers spend money and pay sales taxes in their community. They support local businesses. The
buildings generate Real Estate taxes.
• Population growth is inevitable in Central Florida. The State continues to grow by about 1000 people per day. The
City's Comprehensive Plan envisions continuing population growth.
• City residents say they want more restaurants and shops. Most retailers look for locations with the right mix of
demographics, density, growth, and economic activity in a spot with good exposure and access. Pure bedroom
communities aren't as attractive to most businesses.
• Managing the City's budget would be a much bigger challenge without the growing tax revenue from a growing
population. Banning new apartments would reduce our population growth and would result in slower growth in the
City's budget and/or increasing real estate taxes on existing homeowners. Planning for growth in both population
and economic activity requires apartments to be part of the mix.
Open Space
Preserving our remaining "open space" now seems to be important to many in the community. But I believe that the
public use of that term differs greatly from the City's definition. In the Recreation and Open Space Element of the
City's 2009 Plan Update, open space basically includes city parks, and wetland areas unsuitable for development,
which is a little narrow but fine for Plan purposes. I think the current concern about lost open space is driven by the
development of the fields and woods in the area of the Town Center and along 434, land where one would
sometimes spot deer and wild turkeys. That land is high and dry, presumably in private hands, and has been targeted
for development in the City's Plan for years. Obviously, most of us live on what was that kind of open space not that
long ago (the city's population was only 1,161 in 1970, when Tuscawilla was just getting started, reached 10,475 by
1980 and is about 39,000 today). The City planned for and facilitated development for years. I liked the fields and
woods, and I'll miss the wildlife sightings too, but to say development has to stop now is unrealistic. Those upset by
current development: 1) should have seen this coming, it's the continuation of a 50-year trend; and 2) unfortunately,
may have to move farther out from Orlando if they wish to live among true open space.
Apartment buildings do house more families per acre than single family homes, so the city gets the population
growth, tax revenue grows, the area can support more businesses and restaurants, and open land stays
undeveloped a little bit longer. In a way they preserve open space.
• If we truly want to preserve certain areas, the City would have to buy the land or pay for conservation easements.
Maybe it's time to measure progress on the 2009 "Open Space" plan, and update it and its goals again? But a small
plot of trees adjacent to the Town Center would not be prime wildlife habitat. If we are serious about preserving
vacant land, then a good option might be to acquire a large chunk of the remaining wooded acreage north of 434
between the Town Center and 417, or east of 417, label it the Town Forest, and leave it untouched except for a
walking path. Jetta Point would be another option, and there are probably many others. In today's environment, I
don't think you'll get much credit for your position on open space if all you do is plant some trees in a city park.
Count me among the residents who would like to preserve some natural lands, but I'm not sure about the city's
ability to pay for it. Can we reallocate funds from less important needs, issue a bond like we did for the
Beautification District, and/or would property taxes go up, and by how much? If preserving some of our remaining
natural areas is not feasible, tell people that and explain why.
Are apartments ugly?
• It's a question of taste, and some vocal residents seem to think some of the newer ones are. But apartment buildings
don't have a monopoly on ugly. I think some of the office buildings around here are unattractive. That assisted living
under construction on Michael Blake Blvd doesn't look promising. And some people think that rows of nearly
identical homes on tiny lots are ugly too. Good luck regulating taste in architecture. Few communities have done it
well, and they did it from the beginning (Celebration, for example) not in a community that was already mostly built
out.
Note that some of the buildings in the Town Center have a faux second story to make it look like a traditional city
center, one with apartments and offices above first floor retail. Faux apartments make buildings look better but real
ones are ugly? No, and one or two unattractive developments is not a reason to ban all future apartments.
In summary, there is both a need and a place for apartments in our community. Others could add to my shortlist above. The
Town Center is a logical place for higher density development. More residents in a concentrated area will support existing
businesses and attract new ones. People living there won't have to drive as much, reducing traffic and lowering demand for
parking. And their children won't need buses to get to the nearby schools. Please reevaluate the Open Space Plan while you
find a way to manage growth appropriately. Do the research and then set a reasonable long-term target for what percentage
of our growth should be single-family detached vs apartments vs other options, and then manage to it. Personally, I do not
want sections of 434 to turn into a canyon with multistory apartments on both sides, and I don't want poorly planned sprawl
either. Banning apartments is an overreaction, it's short sighted and wrong. Planning for and managing growth is a better
path for our community. It's also harder. Good luck.
Signed, a concerned citizen
PS: Politics being what they are these days, some might question the motives or credentials of this writer before they fully
consider the content. I am just a regular person, affiliated with neither the real estate business nor the city. I don't claim to
be an expert but I do have some relevant knowledge and experience. I'm also a 25-year resident of Tuscawilla who has
owned five homes in three states. I have no desire to play politics, which is why I'm not signing my name. I'm motivated to
write after seeing drastic positions listed in multiple campaign flyers. I write simply to urge you to consider the data and the
history, and make reasonable decisions for the good of all in our community, despite what may have been said by yourself or
others while campaigning. My bias is toward a healthy, thriving community for all, unlike the Tuscawilla Homeowners
Association, which apparently advocates for homeowners over renters. And I wrote most of this before the election, I just
waited until after to mail it just to the new Commission. Congratulations to the election winners.
cc: Mayor Charles Lacey
City Manager Shawn Boyle
Community Development Director Christopher Schmidt