How council earned the public's distrust and why that distrust continues
Venice resident Rita Kutie eloquently writes to John Simmonds and takes him on point by point over a column Simmonds wrote for the Venice Gondolier; Kutie's letter obtained from public records
-- Rita Kutie in a letter to Councilman John Simmonds, posted to the web on 06/12/07

Got a comment? Make it here.

Good communication?
Thank you for your guest column in the Friday, June 8, edition of the Venice Gondolier. It lends credence to the sincerity of your efforts to be candid with the citizenry. Good communication on both sides of the airport issue has been lacking. I agree with you that, despite our various viewpoints, all views should be considered in the decision-making process.

And yes, civility is expected.

So in the interests of good communication here are some follow-up questions or thoughts related to your list of eight comments.

1.) I take responsibility for not attending meetings in the past year and a half. Had I seen newspaper articles or city publications that indicated a revised airport plan might affect the serenity and natural beauty of the area or that the golf course could be impacted, I probably would have taken more interest. I have not until now checked the citys website routinely. Nor did I see any published reports about the possible far-reaching consequences of a revised airport plan or requests for citizen participation as stakeholders. Lets share the responsibility for lack of interaction between government officials and the public.

2.) Yes, the rumors of losing the golf course were significant in getting citizens dander up. I take you at your word that no contracts have been struck between the city and would-be developers. However, Council played a major part in circulation of such rumors and subsequent animosity by scheduling a special all-day session so that four developers could make sophisticated and expensive presentations promoting their interests in and plans for development of non-airport land. Where did they come from? Who invited them here? Why a meeting? Since three of the proposals envisioned changes to the golf course, are you surprised that citizens who treasure this community asset would not react negatively? Moreover, wasnt Councils scheduling of these presentations before the consultants plan had been made public or approved by the Airport Authority Board out of order in a logical sequence of decision-making procedures? Another point that has fueled concerns is the question of done deals that could have taken place. Newspaper reports state that the VGA has already contracted to sell their lease to one of the presenter developers. That is a risky public statement for a newspaper to make without substantive proof, isnt it? How did the VGA conclude that now might be the ideal time not only to sell the lease but to sell it to an apparent in-the-running developer? These facts or assumed facts have given rise to much innuendo, accusation, anger, and fear on the part of both citizens and their elected representatives. I ask myself if I am nave or stupid to assume that all these events were merely coincidental. Or am I being mean-spirited and unfair in thinking that there could have been a little collusion happening?

Venetian Waterway Park will stay, but will it retain any of its beauty?
3.) I personally got the impression that Harbor Drive and the beach front could be affected because I am quite sure it was verbally stated by a presenter that in his proposed plan Harbor Drive will be closed. How were citizens to know at that point in time that this option would be unacceptable to Council? Again, perhaps it was poor timing for developer presentations.

4.) I agree that losing the Venetian Waterway Park is probably not going to happen. But will its peace, tranquility, and natural beauty be lost if possibly a hotel is overshadowing it? Yes, the Waterway Park may be here to stay, but is it unfair or unreasonable to ask how it might be impacted?

5.) You are right from what I have read in FDOT documents that the airport has been a C-II class for many years. Questions I have not heard answered, or answers that I do not understand are: Will very large or just large airplanes being using the airport? Is a C-II necessary now or required sometime before 2025? When2008 or 2024? It seems to me the study equivocates on their conclusions. How is classification related to FAA approval? Does FAA funding depend on classification alone or along with other factors? And are there exceptions? I know I need to study this chapter and the entire document more carefully.

Council disconnected from its citizenry, not the other way around
6, 7, 8.) It is too bad that Council had little, if any, sense of public attitudes about airport needs and significant land development possibilities before it hired consultants to give their expert advice. Whatever has happened to old-fashioned town meetings? Perhaps such a meeting would have given citizens a preview of possible long-range and (to many) drastic changes in the community; and it would have allowed city officials to learn the publics attitudes, feelings and insights about the issue. Then, with not only your own but also the communitys insights and judgments, would have been the time to hire outside consultants.

Their expertise in finalizing an airport planbased on current and future needs, FAA and State requirements, a growth and development plan that reflects all stakeholder views [I bet we/they would have been there to present them.], and public documents that reflect the communitys history, needs, and attitudes toward growth and developmentmight have resulted in a less controversial situation.

I hope I would have been more interested not only in the development issues but also the reasons for and ways to increase the tax base. Can more details about council and commission/committee agenda items be provided through the press, the city newsletter, or website articles? It would be difficult, if not impossible, for most citizens to regularly attend the meetings of all or even several official governmental bodies. And yes, from your point of view the Airport Advisory Board and Council followed exactly the prescribed rules for developing an airport master plan.

Out of sequence meetings created  suspicions
But again that out-of-sequence developers presentation meeting before we knew a study was in progress (and before we or you knew the official results of that study.) is what most surprised and confused us residents. That mistake cannot be attributed to the citizenry.

It is necessary to establish rapport between the public and the council, and I feel that you want to do so. However, I am concerned that if Council approves the consultants report on June 12, and proceeds with their planned charrettes (in July, I believe Mr. Black stated), it is merely prolonging poor communication and consequent negativity. Please give us time and an opportunity to participate. And thanks for listening.

(I hesitate to use this example, but it just popped out at me as I began reading your column. It shows my negativity and emphasizes how delicate the communication process is.)

Your first one-sentence paragraph says: First, there are two Venice Municipal Airport plans. My immediate reaction was: What? Then I read the next paragraph: One is. . . . Finally, in paragraph 5 you say: The second plan is. . . . To this point we are in total disagreement because my interpretation is: There is one Airport and Land Use Master Plan. Not two. I argue: Chapters 1 through 6 (?) cover Airport Expansion; Chapters __to__ present a Land Use plan. Finally, I realize that we are speaking of the same document. Now as I think about it, two separate, independent studies might have been better.

My point is: Very few of us are gifted with expert communication skills; and we can easily misinterpret each others motives and statements in terms of our own perspectives and value judgments. Nevertheless, lets be tolerant and open-minded. And lets aim for real transparency in what we say and the actions we take. Otherwise, we will continue to question what the airport master plan is and isnt.

Rita Kutie
Park Blvd. S.
Venice, FL 34285

Rita Kutie is a resident of Venice, Florida. Her writings on this page were obtained through public records from city hall.