Mediation is the key to working through Pine Island Plan problem
To the editor:
I recently attended a two-day Urban Public Policy Conference in Detroit. A lot of what was discussed relates to what’s happening with Pine Island. The conference showcased the power of mediation to bring opposing viewpoints into a workable process. This requires de-escalation of interpersonal conflict, eliminating rumor and disinformation, bringing all stakeholders together and encouraging free flow of ideas and dialogue. I think it’s a good model to bring to the current situation. This model rests firmly upon a single uniting principle: fact.
The Lee Plan was adopted in good faith by the County in 1989. Planning for Pine Island placed it within a “Rural” land use category with a permitted residential density of one dwelling unit per acre (1/1). The 2003 Amendment, commonly referred to as the “Greater Pine Island Plan Amendment” (Ordinance 03-03) caused lands that had been designated as “Rural” to be reclassified as “Coastal Rural” with a corresponding base density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres (1/10), a nine-fold reduction in allowable density. (Cammilot LLC v Lee County). These are the facts.
The County can be sued under the Bert Harris Act because of this change in designation. Land owners who purchased property classified as “Rural” at the time they bought it have a legal claim under this Act due to Ordinance 03-03 and the reclassification of their lands from “Rural to “Coastal Rural.” This is the truth.
So, if we agree to the legal basis for the problem, we now can get to the place for its solution. This was clearly presented at the conference: you must meet within the same regulatory framework in which the problem was created and can be solved.
Resolution acceptable to all parties involves all stakeholders being present, heard and understood. Throwing darts at targets does not accomplish this end. When our principles are violated, we find it hard to find common ground. The conference suggested that mediation is a great place to bring all parties to meet, exchange ideas and develop goals that can carry all stakeholders toward a just resolution.
Interestingly, the Bert Harris Act says specifically in 70.001 sub 6 sub c (8) that: This section does not supplant methods agreed to by the parties and lawfully available for arbitration, mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution, and governmental entities are encouraged to utilize such methods to augment or facilitate the processes and actions contemplated by this section. So the act itself recommends mediation.
No one wants to see the unique charm and character and historical significance of Pine Island be ruined. The only question then is how can we work together to minimize the County’s financial exposure without changing the essence of Pine Island? To do so we must accept the facts and move forward together, bringing all parties to the table including Pine Island residents, business owners, independent businessmen and women, parents, nonprofit organizations, County Commissioners, employees dedicated to resolution of this issue and the property owners who feel they have been wronged.
I truly hope that those who have the authority will consider mediation, and that we can try to deflate this conflict on all sides by a campaign of mutual respect and understanding. If you agree that mediation is a good first step please contact your County Commissioners.
Isabel Francis
Bokeelia