Words tell a story in Tuscany vote

Now, that’s what I call politics.

Give me a six-hour public hearing, concluding a 15-hour day that pushes commissioners to the brink of exhaustion, and I’m on the edge of my seat.

OK, not literally. Let’s not get too goofy. It’s not the World Series.

---

But as the guy who’s dabbled more in political observation than anyone in these parts, I can tell you that Tuesday’s discussion and 3-2 vote for the Tuscany Ranch development is an instant classic.

(Here's the video. Starts around the 4:34 mark.)

I had numerous ways to approach this blog. I could discuss the significance of the decision. Or how Chair Rebecca Bays, who cast the deciding vote, seemed to vacillate as the night wore on.

Mostly, this was a true County Commission issue, meaning commissioners weren’t also contending with a large crowd of angry neighbors. Only a few people showed up.

I’m less interested in the development details than the politics of five commissioners wrestling with the biggest development decision of their careers. Deliberations and votes tell me much more than where the lagoon water comes from.

Final tally: Bays, Holly Davis, Jeff Kinnard, yes; Janet Barek and Diana Finegan, no.

What they said along the way:

— Bays: “We have to answer to the citizens. We’re on the hook. We know what the appetite is.”

That’s Bays letting Metro Development Group lawyer Rob Batsel know this isn’t going to be easy. And it wasn’t. Throughout the evening, I tried to get a read on where Bays was headed. It was clear that she’d be casting the deciding vote.

— Barek: “We have enough houses and developments coming in already.”

Commissioner Sound Off says what thousands of Citrus Countians are thinking.

— Finegan: “I don’t think one lane is a good deal for us. I think we can do better than that.”

The developer is offering to pave a single 1.4-mile length of lane to widen C.R. 491, at a value of about $8 million. Finegan believes that's a drop in the bucket to the riches Metro will receive once homes start selling.

Commissioners tell the public they squeeze what they can from developers. Finegan tried to squeeze more 491 commitments from this developer and found no board support for that position other than from Barek.

— Bays: “I don’t know where anything is. It’s just a bunch of colors.”

The commissioner believed Metro’s plan and map looked pretty but lacked detail. Batsel disagreed, and they had a lengthy conversation about it.

For what it’s worth, this doesn’t seem like a smart process. Here we’re voting on the largest development project this county has seen in decades, cramming it into a late-night routine and negotiating significant changes on the fly.

Should we get something of this significance again: A workshop prior to the board’s public hearing. That allows commissioners and citizens to ask questions, narrow down issues, discuss options … and then vote another day at the public hearing.

— Kinnard: “We lose an awful lot. It’s on the back of the taxpayers.”

He was referring to the widening of C.R. 491. The developer provides a portion of that. No developer agreement, no developer helping with the road. It’s that simple.

— Finegan: “Taxpayers will spend tens of millions of dollars to widen 491 anyway.”

She’s absolutely correct. Finegan shot holes in the pro-Tuscany arguments the entire evening. One after another.

— Bays: “I am going to support this. I hope you don’t disappoint me.”

And there we had it. It seemed that Rebecca was truly conflicted. She was highly skeptical of the plan’s lack of detail and paused for several moments before revealing her vote.

The whole thing wrapped up a little before midnight. Long day for sure. This government geek got his fill.

Have a super Thursday, friends.

​Join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Support the blog by subscribing to JWC Inner Circle for 99 cents/month.

Individual donations are appreciated through Venmo, PayPal, or Patreon.