Issue link: https://newsleader.uberflip.com/i/110922
Sarasota News Leader February 22, 2013 OPINION Page 94 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR REVISITING THE 2050 PLAN IS A BURDEN ON TAXPAYERS To the editor: in appropriate areas.��� (Sarasota County Planning Department Summary of the 2050 Plan) How much is it costing to ���revisit��� the 2050 Are these goals still applicable? Throwing Growth Management Comprehensive Plan? them out will be costly to the environment Staff time. Planning Commission time. Board and to future generations. of County Commissioners��� time. We Sarasota County taxpayers are funding the ���your plan Laurel Schiller isn���t workable��� meetings between the develSarasota opment community and County staff. There have been 10 meetings so far. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR We are also paying for staff outreach efforts to ���seek community input��� on how ���unworkable��� The Sarasota News Leader welthe 2050 Plan is. I got a personal call on our comes letters to the editor from taxpayer dollars. Did you? its readers. Letters should be no more than We know what follows: more staff time to do 300 words in length, and include the name, an analysis and put together statistics showstreet address and telephone number of ing the 2050 Plan���s unworkability followed by the writer. Letters should be emailed to Planning Commission and Board of County Letters@SarasotaNewsLeader.com, with Commissioners meetings to verify and codify ���Letter to the Editor��� in the subject line. Letwhat���s unworkable, culminating perhaps in a ters actually printed will be selected based unanimous vote to rework the 2050 Plan AT on space available, subject matter and othOUR EXPENSE. It appears we are paying a lot er factors. We reserve the right to edit any to find out what developers want. letters submitted for length, grammar, spellWhat do we taxpayers want for the county? ing, etc. All letters submitted become the ���Preserve open space, agriculture and enviproperty of The Sarasota News Leader. ronmentally sensitive land and build new, compact, mixed use, walkable developments