Save Our Recreation disputes D.R. Horton's plan
I am writing in response to the Aug. 10 article about the old Cape Coral golf course property and the proposed development by D.R. Horton, which proposes to change the city’s Comprehensive Land Use map by changing the land use for the property from parks and recreation to single family residential.
I would like to address several points to avoid confusion as people consider this important issue for Cape Coral.
First, Horton’s Regional President, Jonathon Pentecost, refers to 600 units on the property. He understates the actual number in its application and the city staff report, which allow as many as 771 single family units on the property if the land use amendment is adopted as proposed.
Pentecost also refers to concessions being made and several council members referenced similar discussions. I don’t know what all has been discussed, but a comprehensive land use map amendment is not something that can have conditions on it and it is voted on solely as it was submitted which means the potential for up to 771 homes. If the land use changed is approved, no one knows what the final Horton plan will be. The fact is this is not a zoning issue yet (contrary to the language used by council member Leon in the article).
It is a comprehensive plan amendment which is strictly a legislative decision made by the elected officials who have great discretion in determining the future land use plans for the community. Once changed, the city will lose much of its ability to preserve and protect this green space.
Pentecost also expresses frustration with the process and opposition they have faced. He claims to be low on patience. Threats are not the way to accomplish a significant change like this to a historical and unique piece of property. The fact is this space has been designated as parks and recreation since the first comprehensive plan for the city was adopted.
Neighbors paid significantly more to be adjoining this property and the city’s own parks plan supports the need for large public park land. This is a large single plot of land in a pre-platted community that is ideal for a park or similar recreational use. Also, when he refers to 50% green space, I don’t think this means parks and buffers. It will include the lawns of the homes.
As for his comments on legal risk, Pentecost is not an attorney and his saying a judge determined the property’s best use is residential is just not true. I am an attorney and read the decision in the court case filed by the current owner. It only decided that unlimited mixed use was not a consistent use with the city’s comprehensive plan.
There was no request for single family residential that the judge ruled on. He also indicated that the city also determined single family is the best use and said the City has paved the way for single family use. I don’t know how he can say this. The only entity that can change the future land use is the city council and the hearing on this is Aug. 21.
Until then, there can only be speculation. Clearly, the city staff is not the decision maker on this issue. As for his comment on threats of lawsuits and punitive damage risk, that type of sabre rattling is disingenuous at best.
As president of Save Our Recreation, I want to clarify comments about our organization that we were not even asked to comment about. First, we are not a membership organization so to say we have 400 members is wrong. It is fair to say that we have people who support our efforts including almost 11,000 people who signed a petition urging the city to reject the proposed land change.
Pentecost said our organization had over 11 years to organize and only raised $25,000 and made no efforts to buy the property. Save Our Recreation was only formed in spring of 2016 in response to the D. R. Horton filing for the land use change. We raise money not to buy the golf course as that is not our purpose, but to fund the costs to participate in the hearing process with our experts and attorneys.
When and if there are opportunities for all the interested parties to discuss possible options that could be a win-win for all parties (like possible land swaps, 20/20 funds or involvement of land trust purchasers) we can then pursue fundraising to help with those types of options. But, sadly for now, there seems to be no interest other than to try to ram through the land use change.
Barth Wolf is president of Save Our Recreation.