|
 |
| 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 Melody Jameson
mj@observernews.net
Sun City -- Headed into an intensifying storm of opposition, the California developer proposing a large shipping container processing center near here has altered course.
The petitions by Inland Port Systems for Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan amendments that would allow rezoning -- and new use -- of some 400 acres of former farm land abutting U.S. 41 close to the Port of Manatee entrance were withdrawn August 12, the day before they were to be considered by county commissioners.
The action means Inland Port’s formal efforts to get the plan amendments and rezoning approvals necessary for the contested multi-modal container center now must be rescheduled for the second round of 2010 comp plan amendment considerations. Deadline for filings in that round is February 28, 2010, Krista Kelly, executive planner with The Planning Commission, said this week.
It does not mean, however, the efforts have abated to steer a project promising jobs but also prompting strong objections through increasingly rough political seas. In letters emailed or hand delivered to The Planning Commission and to county commissioners, Inland Port’s local legal counsel, Mechanik Nuccio Hearne & Wester, noted “…we intend to refile these applications…” In addition, the letter continues, “…we will make every effort to address issues raised…and to further resolve many misconceptions…”
The proposed shipping container center surfaced locally in February when the Tampa office of WilsonMiller, a consultant also representing Inland Port, outlined the project for the advisory group working on what has become the Little Manatee South Community Plan. The center would operate as sort of a clearing house for large, loaded and empty shipping containers arriving and departing by truck, railcar or ship.
In its favor, proponents have cited addition over a period of years of about 1,800 jobs, increased tax revenues, the contribution of such facilities to decreasing costs of shipped goods, and plans for adjacent wetlands restoration plus some uplands habitat creation.
The proposed location, promoters asserted, would provide access to U.S. 41 north and south as well as to I-75 via either existing east-west roadways or on a new road to be put through along the Hillsborough-Manatee county line. It also is removed from settled residential clusters and would not require the standard urban services such as wastewater treatment and potable water supply, they added.
Citizens, though, were not convinced. Sundance residents protested that 18-wheel flatbed trucks bearing the containers, possibly carrying hazardous materials and cutting through their family-oriented, horse-heavy community between U.S. 301 and U.S. 41, would pose threats to riders and pedestrians alike.
Area environmental activists complained that ecological plans would not compensate for potentially toxic run-off from 200 paved-over acres into adjacent wetlands and ultimately into Tampa Bay. Additionally, they expressed concern for impacts on the surrounding natural area, including the Cockroach Bay Preserve, which is the subject of ongoing comprehensive conservation endeavors to salvage a still unspoiled Tampa Bay shoreline and invaluable marine habitat.
Still others pointed out the trade-offs for fewer than 2,000 jobs that well could be filled by workers from outside Hillsborough County were too burdensome to be acceptable.
Professional planning staff at The Planning Commission found more fault with the proposal, emphasizing its numerous inconsistencies with many elements in existing land use planning. And, in June, planning commissioners unanimously voted to deny the petitions, recommending that county commissioners do the same when the matter came up on their calendar.
Shortly before 5 PM on the day preceding that scheduled hearing, however, Inland Port withdrew its petitions from further consideration, thereby preserving its option to begin the plan amendment and rezoning processes anew in the future.
At the same time, the opposition was shaping up in another form as one of Tampa’s daily newspapers prepared an editorial for the next day denouncing the project on several counts and encouraging county commissioners to recognize it as a threat to Tampa Bay as well as ill-advised development, even in economically difficult times.
Local opposition leaders, who supported and cheered The Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial based on potential problems posed by the project, took the withdrawal decision in stride. Marcella O’Steen of Balm said she doubted county commissioners would override such an emphatic planning commission recommendation, particularly a unanimous one. Plus, a large contingent of opponents would have been on hand to remind them, she added.
And, Mariella Smith, a Ruskin activist, pointed out the “extraordinarily wide range of things wrong with this project,” from “truck traffic too heavy for the existing roadways to great risks for a highly sensitive environment to that carrot of hundreds of jobs which, in truth, may be low income and part time.”
On the other hand, Paul DeMariano, Inland Port vice president for the southeast division, expressed disappointment that so many people had become “petrified” in their positions without understanding the “economic engines” the company believes the project represents. The company will continue to work with “open-minded groups,” he added, and work to convey to decision makers the advantages of the Inland Port proposal.
Adam Carnegie, the project’s manager with consultant WilsonMiller, did not respond to an inquiry from The Observer prior to deadline.
The “Central West Coast Florida” multi-modal container center remains on the Inland Port Systems website, designated as one of its “current growth” sites.
© 2009 Melody Jameson
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
farmersvoice
20 Aug 2009, 20:03
do the farmers have a voice here? after all, they ARE the property owners, unlike all these "na sayers" that don't own any of this land. if the farmers want to sell it to elapp or the county, great...if not, they should be the ones drawing up what CAN and CAN"T be done on THEIR property. who are we to limit who they can sell to? freedom??? thank goodness it's not a residential developer that wants the property...oh yeah, we've already got the empty homes, this could have helped to fill those!!!
ruskinite67
20 Aug 2009, 19:44
it does not matter how "far into the rural service area" this may be...the fact remains that our "hillsborough county border line" will always remain right next to a major port...be it in manatee or tampa..it's still a port. why not be ready to benefit from "port related" facilities that are likely to come up one day? it is coming so why not be a part of it rather than left behind?
the commissioners are always telling us to "think regionally" and not just inside of hillsborough county. hello? of course the tampa port isn't for it...it's more money for port manatee- however if you recall, on the "official record" the port of tampa made a comment that THEY "are not against this NOR for it...remaining neutral". so once again, it's a behind the scenes political deal here.
""california kool-aid", ey? i'm as southern and rural as they come, i just happen to have an open mind and am willing to be realist about these types of issues. we have beautiful pristine land that we need to prtect...this particular property, ...not so pristine!
country gal
20 Aug 2009, 15:04
ruskinite - the land is zoned for Agriculture and low density uses. And Ag means jobs, too. Agriculture can hardly be called "nothing." We need to foster AG, as we don't want to be importing our FOOD, like we do our OIL. This project is in the absolute wrong place -- we have an URBAN SERVICE AREA AND A RURAL SERVICE AREA in this county. And this is as far into the Rural Service Area as you can get and still be in Hillsborough County. Quit drinking the California kool-aid and don't be so ready to sell away our rural and AG areas to such a high intensity use and all the problems it spells. And remember, our own port, the Port of Tampa, is against this.
ruskinite67
19 Aug 2009, 20:14
i agree alex222. this state of the economy...what's the problem? so we should keep the land zoned for "nothing"??? yeah, that's a great idea. Hopefully they can get everything together and win this in the next cycle. no brainer....???
alex222
19 Aug 2009, 20:09
it's ashame for all of southshore...too many "do nothing", don't come here attitudes. they don't care to learn the details and benefits.
very unfortunate!
alex222
19 Aug 2009, 20:08
it's ashame for all of southshore...too many "do nothing", don't come here attitudes. they don't care to learn the details and benefits.
very unfortunate!
© Copyright 2008 by The
Observer
News Publications and M&M Printing Company, Inc.
Top of Page
|
|
|
Top Stories
Latest Headlines
|
|
