Well that was fun

Yesterday I sat in the same seat for over 10 hours (with one 15 min break and 2 bathroom breaks). That is the longest I have spent sitting in one spot if not on a plane or waiting in line for Black Friday when getting to the stores 12+ hours in advance of them opening was a thing.

I have a lot to go through this week to recap, but we will start with Pine Ridge.

What a difference 18 months and a non-election year make.

This was previously rejected with a 5-0 vote (although then Commissioner Schlabach would have voted for it then had someone else went along). The overall view was that it did not benefit the people of Citrus County to change the property from a golf course to a gated housing development with 85 homes.

So what changed?

Well first, Dix took out 5 homes and removed the gated community aspect. And well, thats about it. Worthy of a change when just 18 months ago they all agreed it wasn't?

Except, one key thing was different. It is no longer an election year. You see, even Mr Dicks himself acknowledged his mistake. He brought this in January during an election year. What commissioner wants to vote for a project in Pine Ridge to change a golf course to homes? Political suicide right? Pine Ridge is a pretty large voting block and are pretty active voters.

Most of Pine Ridge is located in voting Precincts 109 and 108.

Jeff Kinnard received a combined 1671 votes.
Curtiss Bryant (me) received a combined 1192 votes

Ruthie Schlabach received a combined 1378 votes
Janet Barek received a combined 1812 votes.

Its not worth discussing Holly Davis' race since it was against a 3rd party and she secured 75% or so of the total vote. But in fairness to her, she did say she felt this met all the requirements to approve it, just could not do it that night. But you can argue she was consistent in her vote, even though it changed.

Now, even if Pine Ridge turned on Kinnard and all of them voted for me, he still wins. But in a much closer race than anticipated, he likely didn't want to risk that and the "no" vote doesn't hurt his support here or in the County as a whole. A "yes" vote likely does.

He is the politician on the board. He knows how to navigate votes and does a great job at doing it for the most part.

On the flip side, Barek cleared Schlabach by a total of 750 total votes. In Pine Ridge, she beat Schlabach by 434 total votes. You can easily argue that Schlabach's "pinch my nose and vote yes" was a major factor in her losing to Barek. Pine Ridge took notice and saw through the "no" vote for what it likely really was... a vote for political reasons/optics.

In fairness, Pine Ridge also loves Barek because she is all about roads and has been hammering the board for years about getting them fixed. Pine Ridge has also been beating the "fix our roads" drum.

The black shirts from Pine Ridge walked away last night saying they will remember this come the next election and will vote them all out. Well, Commissioner Bays might want to take notice if she plans to run for re-election.

Politics aside, I knew where this was headed. Early in the meeting, before any questions were asked, I texted this to someone.

I was also texting with people during the hearing and predicted a likely 3-2 vote. Turns out, that was right.

It's predictable at this point. You have one commissioner who will likely be a "No" on most development votes until roads are addressed (Barek). You have one who can go either way and tends to look at things closer than the others, but leans towards denial defaulting to what is already in place (Finegan).

Then you have 2 that are very pro growth and have found very few developments not worthy of approval (Davis and Kinnard). In fact, I do not think either of them have denied an application where that developer donated to their campaign, the first Pine Ridge vote being the exception for Davis. Their campaign accounts are full of developer contributions. There is a reason for that. Nothing illegal, but worth noting.

Then you have Bays, who generally has been the one concerned with how these developments will look in the future. She has denied her fair share, but recently has approved just about everything, including Tuscany on 491 where she should have abstained.

So no surprise to see those 3 join in a vote to approve another development project. I expect many more 3-2 votes in the future on development projects.

Other observations.

Brilliant play on Mr Dicks' part to bring on attorney Rob Bastel. He is very good at what he does and does great charming the commissioners. He knows what they are looking for and knows how to present it in a way the appeals to them.

One thing in marketing, you always make the pitch as if you won. He said several times "when you vote to approve this" throughout the night. He didn't say "If you vote to approve this". Words matter. He wanted to remove any doubt in their minds that they would deny it. He made it sound like they HAD to approve it.

Also, played to the commissioners emotions. Earlier in the day there was passionate discussion about staff and how to protect staff. Bastel used most of his rebuttal period to praise staff in front of the commissioners. Several of them referenced that in their discussion at the end.

Here is what I texted a friend as this was playing out

GREAT JOB and great delivery.

I am not sure what the Pine Ridge attorney was doing. I kept shaking my head as he was hammering points about DRI vs a PUD or PD and different letters here and different letters there. He spent 20+ mins talking about how this shouldn't be here. He opened the door for Bastel to question his opinions of staff.

There were many things to point to, no need to try to confuse everyone with an argument that this application shouldn't even be there. Save that for the appeals process if that is how you feel. Hammer the points on why this does not fit Pine Ridge and why it should stay a golf course.

Honestly, he should have stuck with the argument that a golf course was purchased and its not the county's responsibility to bail out private businesses and someone who admits to not doing proper due diligence for what he bought. And then point to the previous 5-0 vote and noting that there were no significant changes to get that vote overturned.

Hammer away on those points and do not get in the weeds about why this should not be heard and why staff may have made mistakes.

What happens next? I have no idea. I have heard some rumblings but I do not want to speculate on that at the moment. If something concrete comes, I will share it.

But I will speculate on this for the record. Mr Dicks has the contract on Betz farm for around $6m. It has not closed yet and the addendum signed in April 2024 allows him indefinite time to close.

If I were a betting man, I would say that we see Betz farm close within the next couple of months. Just in time for the animal shelter bids to be opened and funding options looked at. Everyone knows we need the money. Carrot on the stick approach.

Would be quite the coincidence. We shall see 😄

Side note: One thing I noticed that kinda eats at me a bit.. A commissioner coming down off the dais after the approval vote and shaking hands and giving hugs to those who supported the project as well as Mr Dicks and his team.

We always hear that they are judges hearing a case with these quasi judicial hearings. When was the last time you saw a judge coming down and giving hugs to the winning side. It doesn't happen for good reason. Optics.

I get that they are friends but they are to be impartial (and still could be). But to observers, that does not look like impartiality.