Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

This isn't the same old annexation

The city of Crystal River finds itself in the middle of another civic squabble over a proposal to annex property.

There are significant differences, though, between the current plan to add 31 acres and the ill-fated annexation attempt in 2004 to absorb 263 acres along U.S. 19 south of town.

For starters, the beneficiaries are not out-of-state developers looking for a big score but working families looking for a place to live and an organization that is trying to level the financial playing field for them.

Florida Low Income Housing wants to build 50 rental duplexes and 28 single-family homes on the site along Turkey Oak Drive. The organization intended to build under the county's development regulations, but when those rules changed, FLIH approached the city for possible annexation.

There are legitimate questions and concerns about the project, and the City Council, which gave initial approval to the annexation late last month, should address them all.

The council also would be wise to avoid the mistake it made during the 2004 RealtiCorp annexation battle when it tried to fast-track the proposal unnecessarily. This time, the council should take its time.

One point should resonate with the veterans of the RealtiCorp battles. The county won't let FLIH build what it wants on the property, and so FLIH has turned to the city, hoping for an easier path. RealtiCorp used the same logic when it approached Crystal River.

In both instances, the implication is that the city is less stringent than the county. That must not be the case. If a project would not pass muster with the county, there likely are good reasons why.

The city cannot afford to have lesser standards or it will invite developmental and environmental problems. The council and the city's residents must be assured that the city's rules are sufficient, are in line with the county's, and that they are being upheld.

Critics of the project are focusing on the financial aspects, specifically that the rental properties would be tax exempt. The argument is that the residents will be receiving city services but will not be paying taxes to support those services.

This is only partly true. While the rental units will be off the tax rolls, the single-family homes planned for the project in time will become taxable.

The council must consider how much of a tax inequity this would really create. The renters certainly will be spending money in the city. They also presumably will be working in and around Crystal River, thereby enhancing the city's economy.

One overlooked element is that the project could actually bring in money for Crystal River. When a city applies for government grants to, say, clean up Kings Bay, the city must meet certain economic and demographic criteria. Showing that the city is making a real effort to provide affordable housing to its moderate income residents could help Crystal River win some much-needed aid.

Yet another potential benefit is that moving the city's boundaries out further opens the door for future annexation of properties that now abut the FLIH site. Those lands, in turn, could prove lucrative to the city's tax base.

Some of the complaints about the project focus on the people who would live there. There are numerous misconceptions and outright prejudices against those who would qualify to live in rental units and the single-family homes.

For those who worry about the loss of property values and of rising crime rates, they need look no further than Inverness, where FLIH developed the Heron Woods project in 2000.

The 99-home development has been a success story since its inception, both in providing needed accommodations for residents and in not being a drain on city services.

Florida Low Income Housing, in fact, has been working hard to meet this county's need for affordable housing for nearly 10 years. The group is committed to making its projects work.

Every community in the country today is struggling to solve the problem of a lack of affordable housing. One way for the government to fulfill its role is to help working families find decent living conditions.

The various particulars of the project and the annexation can be debated and reconciled. There is no question, however, about the need for more and better affordable housing in Citrus County.

As the City Council considers the annexation proposal on Monday, the members must assure residents that the city will enforce its development rules as diligently as the county would on the same project. Residents deserve to have all of their questions answered, even if that means delaying a final vote.

The council must base its decision on sound information, not on irrational fears and prejudices.

[Last modified October 14, 2006, 21:44:56]