|
 |
| Search |
|
|
Observer Classifieds
Place a Classified Ad
Send a Letter to
the Editor
Send a Press Release
Staff Directory
Archives / Search 2003
Community Links
|
|
Top Stories
By Penny Fletcher
penny@observernews.net
TAMPA – The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission hearing room on the 18th Floor of County Center was packed beyond capacity June 22.
 |
| Some of those registered to speak crowded on one side of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission hearing room June 22. The meeting, which started at 5:30 was not over until after 9 p.m. The initial staff report made to the commission was to deny the request to build a shipping center just south of Ruskin’s Little Manatee River Bridge in Sun City, mostly because of its proposed location. “It’s a good idea, this just isn’t the place for it,” said county planner Crystal Kelly. Another public hearing is scheduled for July 23.
Some of those registered to speak crowded on one side of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission hearing room June 22. The meeting, which started at 5:30 was not over until after 9 p.m. The initial staff report made to the commission was to deny the request to build a shipping center just south of Ruskin’s Little Manatee River Bridge in Sun City, mostly because of its proposed location. “It’s a good idea, this just isn’t the place for it,” said county planner Crystal Kelly. Another public hearing is scheduled for July 23.
|
People supporting, and objecting to, a proposed multi-modal container shipping center just south of Ruskin’s Little Manatee River Bridge in Sun City spoke for nearly two hours following the initial presentations by the applicant, Inland Port Systems, and county planning employee Crystal Kelly and their respective staffs.
There is still time for public input. Although county planning staff has delivered its recommendation to the City-County Planning Commission- which came down against the location of the project- the City-County Planning Commission must now consider the staffers report and make its own recommendations to County Commissioners. Before any final vote, there will be another public meeting at the Planning Commission July 23 and then the Planning Commission will deliver its recommendations to County Commissioners Aug. 16.
The public must register in advance to speak at these hearings and each person is given three minutes to present his or her position.
Inland Port Systems president, Richard D. Ellison, PhD., of Coto de Caza, Calif., spoke at length both at the June 22 meeting and the following day with me on the telephone.
“I have been in this business many years,” he said to planners. “And have put up these centers in places around the country. It is a relatively new model, designed to be near ship and rail transportation to decrease freight traveling by trucks and decrease congestion inside the ports as world trade increases.”
Ellison said he has searched the nation and found places where he believes these facilities can have land restoration value and be cost effective near major transportation outlets while easing port congestion.
The proposed Sun City site is surrounded on three sides by preserved lands and lies outside of the county’s planned urban service area. Zoning on 300 acres would have to be changed from agricultural to light industrial, and on 3 acres to natural preservation and the issue of how the project would obtain public utilities would have to be solved to allow for it to be built there.
Those are just a few of the reasons why county planning staff is asking the Planning Commission (and eventually County Commissioners) to deny the project. “We had 29 departments study the proposal,” said Kelly. “There are just too many negative factors starting with the fact that its placement is inconsistent with the county’s long-range plans. It’s a good idea; it’s just not in the right place.”
The Sundance Homeowners Association had attorney Pamela Jo Hatley of Tampa speak on its behalf, saying they felt this project would greatly increase truck traffic through their development, which lies almost directly east of it.
Adam Carnegie, consultant for WilsonMiller of Tampa, hired by Inland Ports, said that just won’t happen. “About 30 percent of the freight will be sent by rail,” he said. And then showed maps with two proposed truck routes heading south that would not affect Sundance.
Carnegie also showed maps of Hillsborough County and said no other area large enough to support such a project was near enough to a port, rail and major roadways.
When others objected due to habitat; flood probability; and congestion, Carnegie countered those claims as well, saying that there were two options for the center to provide its own water and wastewater facilities; giving those in detail, and also explaining how the developer planned to restore lands that the county could not afford to purchase.
Some residents, like long-time community-activist Mariella Smith, would have none of it. “This sets a bad precedent, allowing private entities or other counties to come into our county to provide services outside our urban service area,” Smith said. “Plus think of all the people that would be coming into the county. And where is the infrastructure- the schools and facilities- to support them?”
According to Melanie Morrison, executive director of the Ruskin Chamber of Commerce, that’s just the point. She, along with long-time community activists Fred Jacobsen and Sandy Council, support the project because it will bring what they say is the right kind of planned growth into South County.
“The chamber doesn’t usually get involved with this type of thing,” Morrison said in a telephone interview following the meeting. “But in these economic times, we have to think outside the box. I see more and more people who have been laid off from longtime jobs joining the chamber to seek jobs, changing a lot about the help we, as a chamber, can be to businesses and our community. I feel it’s the chamber’s business to try and help build the right kind of job market in a place where so many people need jobs.”
For many years, South County has cried out for the kind of development that will create employment; and Inland Ports will offer 1,800 jobs.
“With all the empty houses and high unemployment in this area,” Council said at the meeting, “this is just what we need to boost our economy.”
Morrison expanded on the chamber’s position. “Yes, it is against the (county’s) long-term plan. But the county didn’t plan on the economy being what it is now,” she added. “That’s why we decided to get involved.”
I want to point out here that planning staff denial of the project will not stop it. The two public meetings mentioned at the beginning of this story – and possibly more – must take place before any final decision is made. So here are a few facts that might help residents decide which view to take:
A multi-modal container shipping center is a place that receives freight from ships that come from all over the world and acts as a clearinghouse by routing the cargo to final destinations by truck and rail. It would also receive freight by truck and rail to load onto ships leaving from Port Manatee, slightly to the southwest of the site.
The owner and developer, Inland Ports, will not occupy the finished center, but will have tenants, which will all be separate businesses. These are not named (leased to, or known) at this time.
Inland Ports proposes a “site specific” one-time only overlay zone to allow for a project of this scope in an area not designated for such a facility in its long-term plans.
The center will occupy 303 acres; 2.6 million square feet of which will be will be used for industrial purposes; 130 acres would consist of property Inland Ports would restore to natural habitat, removing exotic (non-native) plants.
Questions arose at the meeting about hazardous materials possibly leeching into the Bay and potable water supply in case of a flood; and whether the center’s tenants (as third parties) could be made to abide by any promises made by Inland Port Systems.
Ellison, who returned one of my calls from Tampa International Airport while waiting to return to California, said he is willing to discuss his ideas for environmental safety and restoration at length with those who object.
“USF experts all believe the center will eliminate agricultural runoff and actually help the environment,” he said.
More information about the multi-modal concept and similar projects the company has built is available at www.inlandportsystems.com. Its theory is that an expanding global economy and trade will greatly stress the existing port systems and the multi-modal concept will be necessary to alleviate congestion near every major port in the near future.
What follows is a public comments section. This is not from the Observer News staff - it comes from other people and contains their opinions and theirs alone. The Observer News does not control the material that follows. We do, however, reserve the right to remove objectionable material at our discretion. By that we mean that we will edit or delete any content that we deem is inappropriate. By posting your comments, you are stating that you agree to these terms.
Click here to report a comment.
Comments
true
30 Jul 2009, 15:07
what part of 1800 JOBS CREATED didn't you understand? even if that number happens to be a bit rounded up.....ok, so what if it is only 800? and did you also miss the millions in ad valorem tax revenue to hillsborough county? not to mention, have you seen the proposed site? it backs up to a "PORT" and a PRISON...what a better place. there is horrible runoff and invasive exotive plants....
get a grip of reality and stand behind this project if you care about our community where people desperately NEED jobs!
BG
03 Jul 2009, 11:49
Time and time again our tax dollars have been used to lure corporations who promise X number of jobs. More often than not, the number of jobs created is abysmal compared to the promise.
There is no mention in the article that planning staff did a quick study and found other suitable locations for this type of project.
Mariella Smith had it right when she said the parcel sticks out like a sore thumb into the middle of environmentally sensitive conservation land.
I urge the county commissioners to vote "no".
© Copyright 2008 by The
Observer
News Publications and M&M Printing Company, Inc.
Top of Page
|
|
|
Top Stories
Latest Headlines
|
|
