Monday, March 30, 2020

Good advice in a time of Coronavirus

Statement from an epidemiologist. Please share widely.

Becky Ayesh shared this, and medically expert people have assured me it's spot on. The author Jonathan Smith of Yale can be found here.

* * *

Hey everybody, as an infectious disease epidemiologist, at this point feel morally obligated to provide some information on what we are seeing from a transmission dynamic perspective and how they apply to the social distancing measures.

 Like any good scientist I have noticed two things that are either not articulated or not present in the "literature" of social media.

Specifically, I want to make two aspects of these measures very clear and unambiguous.

 First, we are in the very infancy of this epidemic's trajectory. That means even with these measures we will see cases and deaths continue to rise globally, nationally, and in our own communities in the coming weeks.

Our hospitals will be overwhelmed, and people will die that didn't have to.

 This may lead some people to think that the social distancing measures are not working.

They are.

They may feel futile.

They aren't.

You will feel discouraged.

You should.

 This is normal in chaos. But, this is normal epidemic trajectory. Stay calm.

 This enemy that we are facing is very good at what it does; we are not failing. We need everyone to hold the line as the epidemic inevitably gets worse.

 This is not my opinion; this is the unforgiving math of epidemics for which I and my colleagues have dedicated our lives to understanding with great nuance, and this disease is no exception. We know what will happen; I want to help the community brace for this impact.

 Stay strong and with solidarity knowing with absolute certainty that what you are doing is saving lives, even as people begin getting sick and dying. You may feel like giving in. Don't.

 Second, although social distancing measures have been (at least temporarily) well-received, there is an obvious-but-overlooked phenomenon when considering groups (i.e. families) in transmission dynamics. While social distancing decreases contact with members of society, it of course increases your contacts with group (i.e. family) members.

 This small and obvious fact has surprisingly profound implications on disease transmission dynamics.

 Study after study demonstrates that even if there is only a little bit of connection between groups (i.e. social dinners, playdates/playgrounds, etc.), the epidemic trajectory isn't much different than if there was no measure in place.

The same underlying fundamentals of disease transmission apply, and the result is that the community is left with all of the social and economic disruption but very little public health benefit.

 You should perceive your entire family to function as a single individual unit; if one person puts themselves at risk, everyone in

the unit is at risk. Seemingly small social chains get large and complex with alarming speed.

 If your son visits his girlfriend, and you later sneak over for coffee with a neighbor, your neighbor is now connected to the infected office worker that your son's girlfriend's mother shook hands with.

 This sounds silly, it's not. This is not a joke or a hypothetical.

 We as epidemiologists see it borne out in the data time and time again and no one listens.

 Conversely, any break in that chain breaks disease transmission along that chain.

 In contrast to hand-washing and other personal measures, social distancing measures are not about individuals, they are about societies working in unison.

 These measures also take a long time to see the results. It is hard (even for me) to conceptualize how 'one quick little get together' can undermine the entire framework of a public health intervention, but it does.

 I promise you it does.

I promise. I promise. I promise.

 You can't cheat it.

People are already itching to cheat on the social distancing precautions just a "little"- a playdate, a haircut, or picking up a needless item at the store, etc.  From a transmission dynamics standpoint, this very quickly recreates a highly connected social network that undermines all of the work the community has done so far.

 Until we get a viable vaccine this unprecedented outbreak will not be overcome in grand, sweeping gesture, rather only by the collection of individual choices our community makes in the coming months.

 This virus is unforgiving to unwise choices.

My goal in writing this is to prevent communities from getting ‘sucker-punched' by what the epidemiological community knows will happen in the coming weeks. It will be easy to be drawn to the idea that what we are doing isn't working and become paralyzed by fear, or to 'cheat' a little bit in the coming weeks.

By knowing what to expect, and knowing the importance of maintaining these measures, my hope is to encourage continued community spirit, strategizing, and action to persevere in this time of uncertainty.

=======

For comparison:



Sunday, March 29, 2020

LTE on Rick Scott's claim that the Trump "bailout" is too generous

Your Friday, 3/27, Trib article, “Scott: Bailout is too generous to jobless,”  included a quote in which Senator Scott stated that "$600 weekly payouts would disincentive people from returning to the workforce.”

I understand incentives but the more I try to understand Scott's assumptions concerning disincentives and how and why they work, the more confused I become.

Especially as I recall the startling payout, $9.88 million in a one-time payout settlement and $350 million in stock, Scott received in 1997-98 when he became ‘jobless' at his departure from Columbia HCA.

His payout certainly didn’t disincentivize him as he went on, as a venture capitalist and entrepreneur, to buy, run and create a string of companies and then to become the Governor of Florida and last year its junior U.S. Senator.

Perhaps the amount of the payout is key to whether it will incentivize or disincentivize someone:

        - $6 a week would do neither and would only allow someone to buy a cup of coffee and a doughnut.

        - $60 a week for a family of four or a single mother isn’t enough to move anyone either to or away from working.

        - $6,000 a week might very well disincentivize someone from work and move them to an early retirement in Sarasota.

        - But a $180,000 a week($180,000 x 50 = $9,000,000) payout did just the opposite and moved Scott  to double down and expand his business and professional activities.


Using Senator Scott as the model of what could be done in a bailout to really energize and motivate the jobless, the Congress should have increased the weekly payout.

Dren Geer
Osprey, FL

====

Ed's note:  On the horrific legacy of Rick Scott, see also:

‘It's a sh-- sandwich': Republicans rage as Florida becomes a nightmare for Trump

Monday, March 23, 2020

State parks close due to virus


As of today, March 23, all STATE parks are closed as well as all beaches.

DEP Notice regarding State Parks closing in FL


At the Celery Fields, birds are modeling correct social and physical distancing:




Human visitors to the Celery Fields are advised to follow their lead:

County advisory at all parks

Meanwhile, construction continues at James Gabbert's nearby Waste Transfer Facility:

Construction on the Gabbert WTF Monday 3.23.20

Monday, March 9, 2020

March update on Conservation efforts for the Quads parcels



Via a conference call on Thursday, Christine Johnson updated progress on the Quad parcels and other projects.

Quads: The CF has met three times with County staff and there is confidence they will have permanent easements in place by the beginning of summer on the three parcels (1,2,4) which the County has agreed to give in perpetuity.

  • Parcels 1 and 4 - the Eastern quad parcels - are to be left natural for the most part. Johnson did say there could be some work to bring the canal that runs between the SE parcel and the Celery Fields to a better level of development. I.e., it has paths where people walk, run, bicycle - these might be improved.
  • Parcel 2 (SW) could have some development component that would allow for parking. One of the major issues with the entire area is how little parking and other welcoming facilities are there for visitors.
Once these easements are in place, the property will be left to the CF and Audubon to develop and maintain. It is anticipated there will be no county funding. Here's where the community is likely to be invited to step up and help out.

The Foundation is also working toward solutions for other properties, including the giant Orange Hammock near North Port. The latest on this 5,500-acre site is that the CF has until June 1 to come up with $1.5 million for it. Johnson said this is a key project in that it not only means fewer homes, but also protects drinking water, serves as animal habitat, protects against floods, and still offers recreative and eco-tourism uses. Amazingly, Johnson says the CF is already 41% on its way to the $1.5 million needed. More here.

Updates on other projects, including Bobby Jones, the Felts preserve, and more - can be found via links here.


Celery Fields looking West

A community blueprint for water quality



a blueprint for
water quality improvement
to stop feeding
harmful algae blooms

As many know, Jon Thaxton and Steve Suau were two of the key people behind the creation of the Celery Fields Water Management facility quite a few years ago.

They're still concerned with water, and will be giving several talks on the results of a year's research on nutrients in our soil, and how they affect our bays and waterways. It's a wake-up call for us all. 

Jon and Steve will be at the Robert L. Anderson Administration Center in Venice this Tuesday (March 10) shortly after 1:30 pm presenting to the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners.

Also on Tuesday, they'll do a broader version of their work at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Venice at 7 pm. It's at 1971 Pinebrook Rd, Venice, Florida 34292.

UPDATE: The March 10 Venice presentation is now online, introduced by Brian Kelly of Hands Along the Water:



Update: CONA has postponed this meeting: And they'll be presenting at CONA Sarasota on Friday March 20, at 7, at the Waldemere Fire Station.

Slides they'll show can be found here -- but come to hear the interpretive commentary -- water quality affects us all.







Sunday, March 8, 2020

East County: Call for action from Becky Ayech

PLEASE IMMEDIATE ACTION

Please email the Board of County Commissioners:

Mike Moran mmoran@scgov.net
Christian Ziegler cziegler@scgov.net
Nancy Detert ncdetert@scgov.net
Al Maio amaio@scgov.net
Charles Hines chines@scgov.net

Dear Commissioners,

Please deny the waiver request by Complete Transformation Ministries and Freedom Ranch LLC of the waiting period on your denial of Special Exception #1799, 6289 Verna Road, Sarasota.

This is a land use decision, not a religious decision. This is about whether residents can rely on the regulations that are in place will be followed.

Originally, the Special Exception was for a motel/hotel i.e. overnight stays less than 30 days, a place of worship. produce stand, green houses and many outbuildings. The request now is for a place of worship and a hotel/motel as defined by your ordinances.

Nothing substantial has changed. There are still 19 churches (as evidenced by the published list in Myakka Livin" a local paper) serving Old Miakka, the less than 30 overnight stays are still a hotel/motel operation, the congestion of HWY 70 and Verna Road is worse (as attested by Commissioner Maio) and it does not comply with the Old Miakka Community Plan.

Thank you for your denial.


Wednesday, March 4, 2020

UPDATE: Lobeck to Gruters: Stop this train wreck in its tracks

Update following changes made to Florida SB 1077 after communication from attorney Dan Lobeck to Sen. Joe Gruters. The original Feb. 26, 2020 post is below this update.

In response to objections to his bill to tie the hands of local governments in levying impact fees, State Senator Joe Gruters (R-Sarasota) has withdrawn all major problems in that bill. He did that with an amendment approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee at his request, unanimously on March 3.

Gone from the bill are measures to limit what impact fees can be charged for – prohibiting impact fees for many purposes now levied by Sarasota County such as libraries, courts and jails, and a requirement that local governments load their impact fee committees with members biased towards development interests. Also gone is a measure to remove the right of local governments to decide what roads and other facilities may be built by a developer to get an impact fee credit.

A very bad companion bill - in some ways worse than Gruters’ original bill (partly because of the powers it would give to the biased committee) remains pending in the Florida House. With the Senate and the House now on opposite tracks, the fate of the legislation remains uncertain. It seems unlikely to pass unless House and Senate leaders agree on the wording and it becomes a priority to the leader of either chamber. The legislation was initially drafted by the Florida Homebuilders Association, which prefers that the taxpaying public, rather than builders and developers, pay for the facilities needed to serve new growth.

The amended Senate bill.

Dan Lobeck
President, Control Growth Now
www.controlgrowthnow.org

 ==================

Senator Gruters:

This is to urge that you either pull your SB 1066 regarding impact fees or at least have it amended to correct serious flaws. 

As it now stands, it is a very bad bill.  The House companion, in the form of its current Committee Substitute (pending second reading in the House) is in some ways even worse.

Dan Lobeck
 As you know, this is a Homebuilders Association bill. Certainly, any attempt to tie the hands of local governments on impact fees paid by those homebuilders should be suspect as to whether it serves the public interest or instead serves that special interest contrary to the public interest.

Also, this is one in a long line of legislation in recent years (and before) which would subvert home rule, substituting state strictures for control of commissions closer to the communities they are elected to serve.

Your bill is up for consideration by the Appropriations Committee tomorrow morning at 9.  That would be a good time – among others – to stop this train wreck in its tracks. I am copying the members of that Committee for their consideration.

Others have pointed out problems with the legislation, including with regard to the transfer of impact fee credits; limiting the discretion of School Boards and their professional consultants in formulating impact fee methodologies; and removing the right of local governments whether to agree to “contributions” (such as construction of a road) for which a developer will get an impact fee credit.

Joe Gruters

This is to focus on two severe problems in the bills.

Eliminating Impact Fees for Some Public Facilities

Both bills limit impact fees to certain public facilities listed in what is now s.163.3164(39), Florida Statutes, that is “major capital improvements, including transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational facilities” and certain others.  Those others in the Senate bill are “any fire and law enforcement facility.”  The House bill adds “public libraries, parks” and “emergency medical services.”

Sarasota County, and perhaps other jurisdictions, levy impact fees for public facilities not on that list.  In Sarasota County it is judicial facilities and public administration buildings.

For both of those purposes, Sarasota County has a severe funding shortfall, for both current and future needs.  As such, both impact fees were recognized as inadequate and were increased.

The word “including” and “includes”, without the phrase “but not limited to” may be construed as words of limitation rather than of example.

As such, if your bill becomes law as now drafted, or in its House companion, it may be cited to eliminate Sarasota County’s impact fees for judicial facilities and public administration and (but for the House language) libraries and emergency medical services.

Other Counties and Cities will be similarly limited, for no good reason.

Two other problems with the wording in both bills: what is a “major capital improvement” is ambiguous and as such may be unduly limiting, and “fire and law enforcement facility” should be “fire or law enforcement facility.”

A Biased Impact Fee Committee

Both bills would require each County and City to form an Impact Fee Committee with a mandatory composition guaranteed to be biased towards the builders and developers who pay impact fees.

The Homebuilders Association knew what they were doing when they drafted this.  By serving their special interest, it guarantees that the interests of the taxpayers – on whose backs the cost of public facilities to serve new growth will fall if growth is not made to pay its own way – that is the public interest, will be given short shrift.

The Senate bill states that the Committee shall consist of two persons “who represent the business community” (such as Chamber of Commerce representatives, who in my experience typically ally with builders) and two “local licensed general or residential contractors” (e.g. builders), together with one “at large member.”

The House Bill adds to the Committee two members employed by the County or City which levies the impact fee, one of which must be a School Board employee if there is a school impact fee.

The Senate bill has been amended to allow a local government to instead “use an existing committee which contains representation from the building or development community and reviews building or development projects.” Not only is that option oddly limited (for no apparent reason) to “existing” committees, the killer is the final clause: “and reviews building or development projects.”  That eliminates any existing impact fee advisory committee which does not also perform that secondary function.  As those are two different functions, it is unlikely that any committee does both.  In Sarasota County for example, the Public Facilities Financing Advisory Board advises on impact fees but it does not review building or development projects.  So that committee, whose members are selected to represent not only business interests but also civic organizations, would be replaced by the biased committee mandated by this new law.

In the Senate Bill, the Impact Fee Committee reviews and recommends not only the impact fee methodology but also the impact fee consultant, studies, calculation changes and expenditures – all of the significant determinations of the County or City on impact fees

The House bill goes even further.  It would vest the power to “establish a policy and methodology for determining impact fees on new developments” in the Impact Fee Committee.  Not “recommend” but “establish”, thereby stripping that important power from the local elected officials and instead giving it to a committee which is guaranteed to be biased in favor of those who pay impact fees.  Also, the House bill would require that the Impact Fee Committee submit a recommendation to the governing body of the county or city each time that an impact fee on a “new development” will be discussed and voted upon (whatever that means).

An Albatross

This terrible legislation will be an albatross around the neck of any Senator or Representative who votes for it – providing clear and demonstrable evidence that person serves development interests contrary to the interests of this or her constituents, who will face higher taxes or inadequate public facilities (or both) when impact fees are too low to make growth pay its own way.

Please change course before it is too late, and kill or at least dramatically modify this very bad bill.

Thank you for your considerations.

Dan Lobeck, Esq.
Florida Bar Board Certified in
Condominium and Planned Development Law
Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.
2033 Main Street, Suite 403
Sarasota, FL  34237

Telephone:  (941) 955-5622
Facsimile:   (941) 951-1469


Questions regarding the wording of the bill were raised earlier by Mr. Lobeck and were posted here.