If we are going to think big, let’s think big enough to include everyone.

I saw Pat Simmons at a meeting, and something about that moment has stayed with me.

If you attend Manatee County meetings, you may already know Pat Simmons. She shows up often. She speaks for people with physical disabilities and mobility/access barriers.

She asks for sidewalks that work, buildings that welcome, transportation people can actually use, beaches that can be reached by wheelchair users, parking that makes sense, bus stops that are usable, and public places that do not treat disabled residents as an afterthought.

Pat has a neurological disorder that affects her vocal cords. She told me her mother and grandmother were affected by it too. For Pat, it did not begin affecting her until she was in her 60s. Before that, she worked as a special education educator.

She did not picture herself becoming a disability advocate.

But here she is.

Showing up. Again and again.

At the meeting, Pat stood up to speak, and she teared up. She was upset. Distraught. The words were hard to get out.

Not because she had nothing to say.

Because she had too much to carry.

That moment reminded me that advocacy is not easy, especially when the person advocating is also living with the very barriers she is asking government to recognize.

Pat’s work is practical. It is physical. It is about whether people can actually move through this county.

Now someone using a wheelchair can get onto the beach? There are mats so a person is not stopped at the sand? [Commissioner Kruse credits Pat for advocating for the mat.]

Can someone using a walker safely use the sidewalk?

Are light poles, signs, landscaping, or broken pavement blocking the path?

Can someone with a cane reach the bus stop?

Can someone using a scooter enter a public building without needing help?

Can someone park close enough, unload safely, and get through the door?

Can someone attend a public meeting and be treated as part of the community?

That is the heart of Pat’s advocacy.

Her work through “Fix In ’26” is not just a slogan or a sticker. It is a practical demand that Manatee County recognize physical access as basic infrastructure.

Pat is proud of Fix In ’26, and she should be. But she is also frustrated when city and county buildings, public buildings, or businesses refuse or hesitate to display her sticker. I understand why that hurts. The sticker is not the whole solution, but it is a visible sign that says: people with disabilities are welcome here, and access matters.

If we cannot even display a simple sign of welcome, how serious are we about the harder work?

The harder work is sidewalks. Parking. Ramps. Beach access mats. Restrooms. Bus stops. Transportation. Public buildings. Emergency plans. Event spaces. Hotels. Parks. County projects.

The things that determine whether people with physical disabilities are truly included or just technically acknowledged.

Pat and I talked about transportation, and that conversation hit home for me.

In Finland, where I am from, you can set your clock by the bus. It works. It is reliable. It is a normal way to get around.

Here, public transportation may technically exist, but for many people it is not truly usable.

I looked up a trip from my house to Bradenton Beach, about 19 miles. By car, it was around 40 minutes. By bike, it was about an hour and forty minutes. By public transportation, it was also around an hour and a half — but that included walking more than two miles to a bus stop, riding a bus with multiple stops, transferring, waiting, and continuing from there.

That may be a route on a map.

But for someone using a wheelchair, walker, cane, scooter, oxygen, or someone living with pain, fatigue, heat sensitivity, neurological symptoms, balance issues, or physical limitations, a two-mile walk to a bus stop is not access.

It is a barrier.

That is why Pat’s voice matters.

She is asking us to stop confusing “available” with “usable.”

A sidewalk is not accessible if someone cannot safely travel on it.

A bus route is not accessible if someone cannot reach the stop.

A public building is not accessible if people feel unwelcome or cannot move through it independently.

A beach is not accessible if a wheelchair user is stopped at the sand.

A public project is not inclusive if disability access is added later, after the design is already decided.

And this is where the proposed ice complex can become more than an ice complex.

The status of the project has shifted since the idea first came forward. The Manatee County Commission discussed Project Grace, the proposed indoor sports multiplex at Premier Sports Campus North, during its July 28 meeting. After public comment and discussion, the county said the board approved a motion directing staff to suspend discussions and explore alternative locations. Local reporting also described commissioners voting unanimously to suspend negotiations for the Lakewood Ranch location and explore alternative locations for the proposed $80 million, 190,000-square-foot project.

That makes this the perfect moment to ask a better question.

Not only: where should it go?

Not only: who pays?

Not only: how much traffic will it bring?

Those questions matter. But if Manatee County is still thinking big about an ice complex, we should also ask:

Can we make it amazing for all?

This was my aha moment after talking with Pat.

Pat told me about IMG hosting a wheelchair fencing event and how much she enjoyed seeing that. That stuck with me.

If IMG can host wheelchair fencing, why can’t Manatee County ask whether a new ice facility could be designed from the beginning to welcome athletes with physical disabilities too?

This is not a fantasy idea.

The sport exists.

In the United States, it is often called sled hockey. Internationally, it is called “para ice hockey”. Team USA describes sled hockey, also known as para ice hockey, as a fast-paced, full-contact sport played on ice and designed for athletes with physical impairments in the lower body. Team USA also says it has become one of the most popular and competitive sports in the Paralympic program.

Para ice hockey became a medal sport at the 1994 Lillehammer Paralympic Winter Games, and Team USA is a major world power in the sport. USA Hockey also has a Disabled Hockey program with multiple disciplines, including sled hockey, blind hockey, deaf/hard-of-hearing hockey, standing/amputee hockey, special hockey, and warrior hockey.

So yes, Manatee County should ask:

Can this facility host sled hockey?

Can it host para ice hockey events?

Can it host adaptive skating?

Can it host athletes with physical disabilities?

Can it host inclusive tournaments and community events?

Can it become more than a rink?

That is not anti-rink.

That is pro-better-rink.

If we think small, we build an ice rink.

If we think bigger, we build a regional inclusive sports destination.

A facility designed with physical access in mind could bring more events, more athletes, more families, more hotel stays, more tourism, more partnerships, and more positive attention to Manatee County. It could also give us a reason to improve the transportation system around major public-facing destinations.

And this is where the idea becomes even more powerful.

Accessibility does not stop at the front door.

If disabled athletes, veterans, seniors, families, and visitors cannot get from the hotel, parking lot, shuttle, bus stop, drop-off zone, or paratransit vehicle to the facility safely, then the facility is not truly accessible.

If there are not accessible locker rooms, athlete staging areas, family seating areas, restrooms, service-animal relief areas, safe drop-off zones, and emergency plans, then we missed the opportunity.

If we build a regional sports venue but do not ask whether people with physical disabilities can actually use it, then we have not thought big enough.

But if we do ask, there may be other doors to open.

Federal transportation programs already recognize that seniors and people with disabilities often need better mobility options. The Federal Transit Administration’s Section 5310 program provides formula funding to help meet the transportation needs of older adults and people with disabilities when existing transportation is unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. Federal law also identifies accessibility improvements as part of the Section 5310 framework.

That does not mean an ice rink automatically qualifies for funding. It means Manatee County should be smart enough to ask the funding question.

If the county is considering a regional sports-tourism facility, can part of the broader plan include accessible transportation?

Can it include event shuttles?

Can it include paratransit coordination?

Can it include hotel connections?

Can it include first-mile/last-mile mobility for people who do not drive?

Can it include safe sidewalks, drop-off zones, and accessible routes that serve residents year-round, not just event visitors?

Can a project that includes disabled athletes help Manatee County pursue transportation or accessibility funding that would otherwise be left on the table?

Those are the questions smart counties ask.

This is a chance to connect sports tourism, disability access, transportation, hospitality, and public infrastructure into one better vision.

Imagine Manatee County being able to say:

We did not just build a rink.

We built a facility that welcomes athletes of all abilities.

We built a place that can support sled hockey and adaptive sports.

We planned for families, seniors, veterans, wheelchair users, scooter users, and people with mobility limitations.

We connected the facility to transportation that works.

We listened to local disability advocates before the plans were finalized.

We made Fix In ’26 real.

That is the kind of public relations you cannot buy.

But it has to be honest.

It cannot be a sticker in one window while the bus stop is unreachable.

It cannot be a proclamation while the beach has no mat.

It cannot be a ribbon cutting while people with physical disabilities are still asking whether anyone thought about them.

If Manatee County continues exploring an ice complex, the BOCC should ask the builder, operator, staff, and tourism partners direct questions before any new location, lease, design, site plan, or operating agreement is finalized.

Has anyone consulted athletes with physical disabilities?

Has anyone consulted sled hockey or para ice hockey organizations?

Has anyone consulted USA Hockey Disabled Hockey?

Has anyone consulted adaptive sports groups?

Has anyone consulted transportation planners about accessible shuttles, paratransit, hotel connections, and safe drop-off zones?

Has anyone consulted local advocates like Pat Simmons?

Will the facility be designed only to meet the minimum, or will it be designed to welcome more people and host more kinds of events?

And one more question:

If inclusion can make the project better, more useful, more fundable, and more attractive as a regional destination, why would we not ask for it now?

That question should be asked before the next location is chosen.

Before the lease.

Before the site plan.

Before the operating agreement.

Before the ribbon cutting.

Before a disabled athlete, parent, veteran, senior, or visitor discovers they were never really part of the plan.

Pat Simmons should not have to carry this alone.

People with physical disabilities should not have to beg to be remembered.

And Manatee County should not wait until something is already built before asking whether everyone can use it.

If we are going to think big, let’s think big enough to include everyone.

Build it inclusive.

Build it smart.

Build it so people with physical disabilities can get there, enter, participate, compete, watch, cheer, and belong.

Build it so Pat Simmons can point to it and say:

This is what Fix In ’26 was supposed to mean.

Call to Action

Before Manatee County finalizes any new location, lease, site plan, design, or operating agreement for the proposed ice complex, ask the BOCC to require a disability-inclusion review focused on physical access and mobility barriers.

Ask them to consult people with physical disabilities, adaptive sports organizations, sled hockey and para ice hockey groups, USA Hockey Disabled Hockey, transportation planners, tourism partners, hotel partners, and local advocates like Pat Simmons.

Ask whether the facility can support sled hockey, para ice hockey, adaptive skating, and inclusive events for athletes with physical disabilities.

Ask whether transportation is part of the plan: accessible shuttles, paratransit, safe drop-off zones, sidewalks, bus access, hotel connections, and realistic routes for people who do not drive.

Ask whether the county has explored state or federal funding opportunities tied to enhanced mobility, accessibility, and transportation for seniors and people with disabilities.

Ask whether public buildings, county projects, and community partners will proudly support Fix In ’26 not only with words, but with visible welcome and real physical access.

If Manatee County wants to build something big, let’s make it amazing for all.

If you build it, build it inclusive. Build it now. L

Contact Pat Simmons for stickers

I honestly thought eliminating property taxes in a state with no personal income tax was a political gag. It is now on our November ballot—and we need to take it seriously.

When Governor Ron DeSantis first started talking about eliminating property taxes, I honestly thought it was a political stunt.

A gag.

A headline designed to make people cheer before anyone asked the most obvious question:

Florida has no personal income tax. If we eliminate one of the main ways counties and cities pay their bills, where exactly is the money supposed to come from?

Nobody has answered that question.

Instead, Florida lawmakers rushed a massive property-tax amendment through a special session and placed it on the November 2026 ballot.

It is called Amendment 3: “Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes.”

That title sounds wonderful. Who wants excessive taxes?

But this proposal is not simply trimming waste or giving struggling homeowners a modest break. It would remove billions of dollars every year from the counties, cities and special districts that provide the services we use every day.

The state’s own financial experts estimate that Amendment 3 would reduce local-government revenue statewide by approximately $5 billion in its first year, growing to more than $10.7 billion a year by 2030–31. Florida TaxWatch notes that legislators approved the amendment before that full fiscal estimate was available.

That is not careful budgeting.

That is driving toward a fiscal cliff while arguing over who gets to hold the steering wheel.

What Amendment 3 actually does

Florida homeowners currently receive homestead exemptions that reduce the value of their primary residence subject to property taxes.

Amendment 3 would greatly expand the exemption for most county and city taxes:

• To $150,000 in 2027

• To $250,000 in 2028

• Then adjusted for inflation

School property taxes would remain.

The amendment would also reduce the annual assessment-growth cap on many non-homestead properties—including rentals, second homes and commercial properties—from 10% to 5%.

It would take effect January 1, 2027, after receiving at least 60% support from voters. (The Florida Senate)

Some homeowners would receive a real tax reduction. I will not pretend otherwise.

But the cost of running Manatee County does not disappear because a line disappears from your property-tax bill.

The sheriff still has to answer calls.

Ambulances still have to arrive.

Roads still need repairs.

Stormwater still has to drain.

Libraries, parks and animal services still have to operate.

Hurricanes do not care that we passed a constitutional amendment.

The expense remains. Only the way we collect the money changes.

You will still pay. The bill will just have a different name.

This is the part voters must understand.

A government cannot remove billions of dollars in recurring revenue while continuing every service at the same level without finding money somewhere else.

There are only a few possibilities:

1. Cut services.

2. Delay roads, drainage and other projects.

3. Borrow more money.

4. Raise other taxes.

5. Create more fees and special assessments.

6. Shift a greater burden to renters, businesses and properties that remain taxable.

So perhaps your property-tax bill falls.

Then you receive:

• A stormwater utility fee

• A fire assessment

• A transportation assessment

• Higher ambulance charges

• Higher permit and inspection fees

• Higher solid-waste charges

• New special taxing districts

• Another sales-tax proposal

They will tell you these are not property taxes.

Technically, they may be right.

But when the money leaves your bank account, does the label really make you feel better?

A tax cut is not much of a tax cut when government replaces it with five separate bills and provides fewer services along the way.

What this could mean for Manatee County

The state’s updated July estimate shows the effects inside Manatee County could be enormous.

In fiscal year 2028–29, the estimated loss to Manatee County government, municipalities and special districts combined is approximately $159.3 million.

By 2030–31, that annual loss is estimated at approximately $193 million.

The state’s table lists the Manatee-wide impact at $159.3 million in 2028–29 and $193 million in 2030–31, with a projected recurring impact of approximately $212.3 million.

Pause and consider that.

We are already discussing:

• Roads that have not kept pace with growth

• Serious stormwater and flooding needs

• Sheriff, EMS and public-safety expenses

• Library and park needs in growing communities

• Animal-services facilities

• Environmental protection

• Hurricane preparation

• Infrastructure for North River and District 1

• A county reserve fund that has already been weakened

Commissioner George Kruse recently wrote that Manatee has reduced its millage rate by more than 10% since 2021, resulting in roughly $116 million less in property-tax collections over five tax cycles. He argues that the county has covered recurring obligations by spending down reserves—and that the rainy-day fund is nearly depleted just as fiscal trouble is approaching. (George W Kruse)

Whether you agree with Commissioner Kruse on every issue is irrelevant. Those numbers should concern all of us.

Manatee cannot continue cutting recurring revenue, spending reserves and promising the same level of services forever.

Math eventually wins.

District 1 will not escape the consequences

District 1 is one of the fastest-growing parts of Manatee County.

We already need more:

• Roads and safer intersections

• Sheriff and emergency coverage

• Drainage and flood protection

• Parks and libraries

• Traffic planning

• Code enforcement

• Emergency evacuation capacity

• Infrastructure maintenance

Growth does generate revenue, but it also generates costs.

Impact fees paid by developers do not replace the county’s entire operating budget. They are legally restricted and generally tied to growth-related capital needs. They cannot simply pay for every deputy, every library employee, every pothole, every drainage repair or every continuing county expense.

A county is not built once and then finished.

It must be staffed, maintained, repaired and protected every year.

Amendment 3 would permanently weaken the revenue base used to do that.

Why is there bipartisan opposition?

Because arithmetic is not partisan.

Former Republican state Senator Jeff Brandes and former Democratic Congressman Al Lawson have joined a legal challenge arguing that the amendment’s ballot language is biased and misleading.

Their concern includes the amendment’s title—“Save Our Homes from Excessive Property Taxes”—and its claim that the amendment benefits Florida taxpayers without clearly telling voters who benefits, who does not and what local governments stand to lose.

Opposition also includes labor organizations, nonprofits, local officials and community leaders. (Axios)

This is not Democrats attacking a Republican tax cut.

Republicans, Democrats and independents are looking at the same numbers and asking the same question:

How do you remove billions of dollars from local government without cutting services or charging people another way?

Still no answer.

Even DeSantis has backed away from leading it

Governor DeSantis has not officially said he will vote no.

He says he still intends to vote for Amendment 3.

But he has also announced that he will not lead the campaign for it, saying the final amendment passed by the Legislature “wasn’t my proposal.” (Axios)

That is a remarkable retreat.

DeSantis originally made property-tax elimination one of his headline issues. He called the special session. He pushed the concept. He wanted the political credit.

Now that the Legislature’s version is on the ballot—and the staggering financial consequences are becoming clearer—he is stepping away from responsibility for selling it.

In other words:

He helped start the fire, but now says this particular fire is not exactly the one he ordered.

The Legislature did change his original proposal. School property taxes were protected, a proposed state trust fund to help local governments was removed, and other major provisions were rewritten. (Florida TaxWatch)

But the basic problem remains.

Florida is asking voters to approve a historic change to local-government funding without a reliable replacement plan.

Even the person who started this conversation apparently does not want to become the face of the final product.

That should tell voters something.

This is how local control quietly disappears

Amendment 3 is also about who controls our communities.

Local voters elect county commissioners and city officials to make decisions about local services and budgets. We can attend meetings, challenge them, vote them out and demand explanations.

But when Tallahassee removes local revenue and restricts how the remaining money can be used, local officials are left with responsibility but less authority.

Then the state can blame counties for deteriorating services, rising fees or infrastructure delays caused partly by state-imposed revenue restrictions.

Kruse described the pattern plainly: restrict local revenue, redirect power toward Tallahassee, criticize local governments for the resulting problems and then use those problems as a reason to take even more control. He also noted that a change capable of reshaping local government for decades received less public scrutiny than many minor road projects. (George W Kruse)

That is not conservative local control.

That is state control wrapped in the language of tax relief.

What about renters?

Renters do not receive a homestead exemption.

Landlords and commercial-property owners could benefit from the lower 5% assessment-growth cap, but there is no requirement that any savings be passed to tenants.

At the same time, renters use county roads, parks, libraries, emergency services and public safety like everyone else.

When governments replace property-tax revenue with sales taxes, fees and assessments, renters will help pay those costs too.

That is one reason the ballot slogan is misleading.

It says it benefits “Florida taxpayers,” but the benefits and costs will not be shared equally.

An established homeowner with a large homestead exemption may receive a significant benefit.

A young renter trying to save for a first home may receive no direct benefit while paying more through sales taxes, rent, fees and reduced services.

Why are so many Republican candidates supporting it?

Because “I will cut your property taxes” fits neatly on a campaign card.

Explaining a $159 million Manatee County revenue loss does not.

It is easy to promise people a smaller tax bill.

It is harder to stand before voters and explain which roads will wait, which positions will remain empty, which fees will rise and which services will shrink.

Many Republican candidates appear eager to support Amendment 3 without explaining the second half of the equation.

Every candidate who supports it should be asked:

Which Manatee County services would you cut?

Which new fees would you support?

How would you replace the lost revenue?

Would you support a higher sales tax?

Would you cut the Sheriff’s Office, EMS, roads, stormwater, libraries, parks or animal services?

How do you replace nearly $160 million a year without affecting residents?

“Government waste” is not a complete answer.

Show us the budget lines.

Show us the numbers.

Show us the plan.

I am voting no

I oppose Amendment 3.

Loudly and clearly.

That does not mean I support unlimited taxation or careless spending. Property taxes have increased for many families, housing costs are crushing people, and every level of government should be accountable for how it spends our money.

But responsible tax reform begins with a complete plan.

It identifies waste.

It protects essential services.

It explains who benefits.

It explains who pays.

It provides a replacement source—or openly identifies what will be cut.

Amendment 3 does none of that adequately.

Instead, it gives voters an attractive slogan and leaves counties to deal with the wreckage afterward.

What I initially thought was a political gag has become a constitutional nightmare.

Florida has no personal income tax. Local governments depend heavily on property taxes to pay for essential services. Removing billions of dollars does not remove the bills, the employees, the infrastructure or the emergencies.

It merely hides the cost until after the election.

Do not vote for a slogan.

Do not vote for a mystery bill.

Do not vote for politicians who promise everything will somehow stay the same after the money is gone.

Vote NO on Amendment 3.

Because the taxes may disappear from one line—but the costs will come back under another name.

Sometimes the most important public records are not hidden.

They are sitting at the library.

In binders.

On a table.

Waiting for someone to care enough to stop, look, and ask, “What is this?”

That is how this rabbit hole started for me. I saw the FDOT records on display at the library for the Bradenton–Palmetto Connector Project Development and Environment Study, also called a PD&E Study. The project number is FPID 444843-1.

FDOT describes it as a study to evaluate corridor alternatives connecting Bradenton and Palmetto across the Manatee River, with the goal of improving regional mobility, connectivity, and safety for drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, trucks, and transit.

That sounds simple enough.

Traffic is bad.

We need safer roads.

We need better connections.

Nobody is denying that.

But once you start reading the documents, you realize this is not just about moving cars over a bridge.

This is about homes. Businesses. Stormwater. Noise. River impacts. Construction. Emergency access. Public money. Growth. Neighborhoods. And whether regular people are paying attention before the decision is already mostly made.

This may look like District 1 — but it affects all of us

On paper, this may look like a project that mostly affects “District 1”, because it runs through the Bradenton–Palmetto area and the Manatee River crossing.

But real life does not work that way.

We do not stop traveling at district lines.

People in Parrish go to Bradenton.

People in Palmetto go to Sarasota.

People in Bradenton go to Ellenton.

People in Lakewood Ranch use county roads.

Emergency vehicles do not care where one commission district ends and another begins.

Stormwater does not stop because a map says it crossed a boundary.

Traffic does not politely back up only inside one district.

This is a countywide issue because roads are part of a system. A decision made in one corridor can change traffic patterns, growth pressure, commute times, evacuation routes, and public costs far beyond the line drawn on a project map.

What stage is this project in?

This project is in the PD&E phase, which stands for Project Development and Environment.

That is government language for: “We are studying the project in enough detail to choose a location and design concept.”

FDOT says this hearing is being held to present the “Preferred Alternative” and the analysis completed so far, and to let the public comment on the project’s location, conceptual design, and social, economic, and environmental effects.

That matters.

This is not the stage where we say, “Oh, maybe someday someone will think about a bridge.”

This is the stage where the project is being shaped into something real.

FDOT’s project page says the study includes engineering and environmental assessments and looks at the natural, social, physical, and cultural environment, project cost, traffic, and community input.

In other words, these binders are not decoration.

They are the record.

The documents tell you what to look for

The documents on display are not bedtime reading, but they matter.

They include things like:

Traffic analysis.

Natural resources evaluation.

Noise study.

Contamination screening.

Pond siting.

Preliminary engineering.

Public involvement.

Environmental review.

That may sound boring until you translate it.

“Traffic analysis” means: who is using the road, where are they coming from, where are they going, and does this actually solve congestion?

“Natural resources” means: what happens to wetlands, habitat, water, trees, shorelines, and the Manatee River?

“Noise study” means: whose home, business, church, park, or apartment gets louder?

“Contamination screening” means: are there old fuel tanks, industrial sites, contaminated soils, or groundwater issues near where they want to dig?

“Pond siting” means: where does the stormwater go, and whose land may be needed to treat runoff?

“Preliminary engineering” means: how many lanes, how much concrete, how wide, how high, and how close to people’s daily lives?

This is why people need to look now.

Because a phrase like “preferred alternative” sounds clean on paper, but a road is never just a line on a map.

A line on a map is someone’s street.

Someone’s driveway.

Someone’s business access.

Someone’s flooding problem.

Someone’s noise.

Someone’s neighborhood.

Corridor A may avoid some impacts — but it concentrates others

The current preferred direction appears to focus on “Corridor A”, which is essentially the existing “US 41 / US 301 / DeSoto Bridge” connection between Bradenton and Palmetto.

On paper, that can sound like the least disruptive option because it uses an existing transportation corridor instead of cutting a brand-new path somewhere else.

But existing roads have existing people.

Existing homes.

Existing apartments.

Existing businesses.

Existing churches.

Existing bus stops.

Existing pedestrians.

Existing cyclists.

Existing flooding concerns.

Existing noise.

So when government says one option has “fewer impacts,” we need to ask the grown-up question:

Fewer impacts for whom?

Because using an existing corridor can still mean the people already living with traffic, noise, heat, stormwater, and safety problems are asked to carry even more of the regional burden.

That does not mean we oppose fixing traffic.

It means we refuse to pretend traffic relief is free.

Someone always pays.

The question is whether the people paying the real cost are being honestly told what is coming.

The pass-through traffic question is huge

One detail really stood out to me.

FDOT says its origin-and-destination analysis showed pass-through traffic increased from “31% to 47%”.

Read that again.

If nearly half the traffic in the study area is pass-through traffic, then we need to ask whether local neighborhoods are being asked to absorb more pavement, more noise, more construction, more stormwater, and more disruption mainly to move regional traffic faster through them.

That is not an anti-road question.

That is a fairness question.

If the benefit is regional, then the burden cannot just be dumped on the residents living along the corridor.

The environmental part is not small

FDOT says the project is evaluating environmental resources and potential impacts. The public hearing notice also says the project is subject to Section 4(f) and may result in a “use” of protected properties. Section 4(f) involves certain parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. FDOT is specifically asking for public comment on potential effects to those protected features.

That should get our attention.

We should be asking:

Which protected properties are affected?

Is it temporary, direct, or constructive use?

Are they calling it “de minimis,” meaning minor?

What alternatives avoid those impacts?

What mitigation is being proposed?

And then there is stormwater.

More lanes and more pavement usually mean more runoff. Runoff carries oil, tire particles, brake dust, trash, sediment, and other pollutants. In this area, that eventually matters to the “Manatee River”.

So the pond siting report is not just a drainage document. It is a water-quality document. It is a land-use document. It is a neighborhood-impact document.

We should ask whether this project will actually improve runoff treatment or merely handle the added runoff enough to meet minimum standards.

Minimum standards are not always the same as protecting the place we live.

Libraries are not just buildings with books

This is the part I want people to really understand.

The library matters.

Not only because we love books. Not only because kids go there. Not only because people use computers there.

Libraries are one of the last ordinary public places where residents can walk in and see government records for themselves.

No lobbyist needed.

No special title needed.

No engineering degree needed.

No permission slip needed.

Just walk in, look, read, take notes, ask questions.

This is civic life.

And honestly, this is what too many people have been trained not to do. We are told government is too complicated. Planning is too technical. Transportation is too specialized. Environmental review is too dense. Just trust the process.

No.

Trust is earned.

The public has every right to read, ask, question, and participate.

What we need to do now

FDOT is holding a public hearing on “Thursday, July 16, 2026”, at the Manatee County Fairgrounds, Veterans Hall, 1402 14th Avenue West, Palmetto. The open house starts at 5 p.m., and the formal presentation and public comment portion begins at 6 p.m. There is also a live online option.

Project documents are available for public viewing from June 25 through July 27, 2026, online and in person at the Central Library, Palmetto Branch Library, and the FDOT Manatee Operations Center by appointment. Comments must be received or postmarked by Monday, July 27, 2026, to be included in the formal hearing record. FDOT says all comments are weighed equally.

Please do not wait until this is already decided and then ask why nobody told us.

Go look now.

Bring a neighbor.

Bring questions.

Take pictures of the displays.

Ask FDOT staff to explain what you do not understand.

Write down what does not make sense.

Submit a written comment.

Your comment does not need to sound fancy.

It can be simple:

I support solving traffic and safety problems, but I do not support moving forward without clear answers on neighborhood impacts, stormwater, noise, construction disruption, right-of-way impacts, environmental protection, and whether this project primarily benefits local residents or regional pass-through traffic.

That belongs in the record.

Questions residents should ask

Here are the questions I would bring:

How many lanes are proposed?

Is anything elevated?

Will any homes, businesses, churches, apartments, or public spaces lose land or access?

Will right-of-way acquisition be needed?

What happens to emergency access, especially around hospital and medical routes?

Where will stormwater ponds go?

Will runoff into the Manatee River increase?

What protections are being added for pedestrians, cyclists, bus riders, and people without cars?

Who qualifies for noise protection?

How long will construction take?

What happens to local businesses during construction?

How much of the traffic benefit is for local residents versus pass-through traffic?

Which Section 4(f) properties are affected?

Why is this level of environmental review considered enough for a project of this scale?

What specific changes have been made because of public input?

Who should hear from us?

This is an FDOT project, but elected officials should still hear from residents.

Manatee County’s current U.S. Representative for the 16th Congressional District is Vern Buchanan, and Florida’s U.S. Senators are Ashley Moody and Rick Scott, according to the Manatee County Supervisor of Elections.

At the state level, Manatee County includes State Senate District 20, Jim Boyd, and District 22, Joe Gruters. The State House members listed for Manatee are District 70, Michael Owen; District 71, Will Robinson; and District 72, Bill Conerly. The exact representative depends on your address, so check your voter information if you live near the project area.

And locally, city and county officials should hear from us too. Roads may be designed by FDOT, but the impacts land in our neighborhoods.

No elected official should be able to say later, “We did not know residents cared.”

This is bigger than one road

This is what civic participation looks like before the bulldozers show up.

It is not always dramatic.

It is not always viral.

It is not always a speech at a podium.

Sometimes it is a person standing in the library, reading a binder most people walked past.

Sometimes it is a neighbor asking, “Where does the water go?”

Sometimes it is a resident saying, “Wait, whose home is next to that elevated lane?”

Sometimes it is one written comment that becomes part of the formal record.

That matters.

Because if we do not participate now, we should not be surprised when decisions are made without us.

Go to the library.

Read the records.

Ask questions.

Show up on July 16.

Submit your written comments by July 27.

Pay attention to who listens.

And vote like these decisions affect your daily life.

Because they do.

[1] 444843-1 Bradenton-Palmetto Connector Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study"

[2]: FDOT Bradenton-Palmetto Connector Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study Overridden -

[3]: Elected Officials - Vote Manatee

AI-generated comparison of some Port Manatee development options, ranked by public benefit and environmental impact.

I am not against economic development at Port Manatee.

Let me say that clearly.

Port Manatee is one of Manatee County’s strongest economic assets. SeaPort Manatee describes itself as one of Florida’s largest and fastest-growing deepwater seaports, located at the entrance to Tampa Bay and serving container, bulk, breakbulk, heavylift, project, and general cargo customers. The port reports more than $7.3 billion in annual economic impact and more than 42,000 direct and indirect jobs, without local property tax support.

That matters.

A working port can support good jobs, trade, agriculture, construction, emergency response, skilled trades, and long-term regional resilience.

But not every type of “economic development” is equal.

Some development creates good local jobs and improves the community.

Some development uses public infrastructure but gives little back.

Some development creates a permanent burden on water, power, roads, emergency services, land, and taxpayers.

And some development becomes dangerous because it is paired with something even bigger:

A loss of local control.

So if we are going to talk honestly about the future of Port Manatee, we need to ask two questions.

First:

What kind of development actually improves Manatee County?

Second:

Who gets to decide?

Because if the wrong people are elected to the County Commission or sent to Tallahassee, a vote for them may become a vote for something they never put clearly on a campaign palm card.

A vote for a county or state candidate should not become a blank check to give away local control of Port Manatee later.

We already saw the warning sign.

In 2025 and 2026, there was a serious effort to change the structure of the Manatee County Port Authority.

HB 4073, sponsored by Rep. Bill Conerly, would have converted the Manatee County Port Authority from a dependent special district into an independent special district.

Under the proposal, the current model — where the seven elected county commissioners serve as the Port Authority board — would have been replaced by a five-member board with four members appointed by the Governor and only one member appointed by the Manatee County Commission.

That is not a small technical change.

That is a massive shift in control.

It would have moved one of Manatee County’s most important public assets further away from direct voter accountability and toward a mostly state-appointed board.

The Port Authority itself did not approve the proposal. Reporting says the vote failed 3-3.

The reported yes votes were:

George Kruse

Amanda Ballard

Mike Rahn

Then, despite that local split, the Manatee County Legislative Delegation voted to move the proposal forward.

That delegation included:

Jim Boyd

Will Robinson

Michael Owen

Bill Conerly

HB 4073 later died in the Florida House Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee on March 13, 2026.

But the fact that it got that far should make every Manatee County voter pay attention.

Because people can say one thing during campaign season and vote another way later.

They can say they support local control.

They can say they support residents.

They can say they care about transparency.

They can say they only want what is best for the port.

But we already have a record.

And voters should look at that record.

Watch what they do, not just what they say.

Some of the people connected to this issue are on the ballot, seeking reelection, or tied to the next round of political power.

Amanda Ballard is running for reelection to Manatee County Commission District 2.

Mike Rahn is running again for Manatee County Commission District 4.

Bill Conerly, who sponsored HB 4073, is running again for Florida House District 72.

Jim Boyd is running again for Florida Senate District 20 and has been identified as Senate President-designate for the 2026–2028 legislative term.

Michael Owen is running again for Florida House District 70.

These names matter because Port Manatee matters.

And voters should not let anyone rewrite history later.

The question is not just whether a candidate now says, “I support Port Manatee.”

Almost everyone will say that.

The real questions are:

Do they support keeping Port Manatee under local control?

Would they oppose another attempt to shift power to a state-appointed board?

Would they oppose using Port Manatee for private projects that create public risk?

Would they protect taxpayers from being forced to subsidize infrastructure for private profit?

Would they say no to hyperscale AI data centers at or near the port?

Would they put residents first when lobbyists, developers, consultants, and political insiders come calling?

That is the part voters need to read between the lines on.

Especially with new candidates.

A new candidate may not have a voting record yet, but they still leave clues.

Who is funding them?

Who is advising them?

Who is hosting their events?

Who are they afraid to criticize?

Do they speak clearly about local control, or do they hide behind vague words like “growth,” “jobs,” “innovation,” and “partnership”?

Do they understand the difference between responsible port development and handing away the future piece by piece?

Do they talk about taxpayers, water, power, infrastructure, and public oversight?

Or do they only talk about business opportunity?

Manatee County cannot afford candidates who sound nice in public but vote differently when it matters.

Development should pass the public benefit test.

Before anyone says yes to a major project at or near the port, I believe it should pass a basic public benefit test.

Does it create good local jobs?

Does it support existing port functions?

Does it help Florida recover from storms?

Does it strengthen agriculture, marine trades, logistics, or manufacturing?

Does it protect water?

Does it avoid shifting costs onto taxpayers?

Does it keep public assets accountable to the public?

Does it fit the land, the road system, the grid, and the surrounding community?

Does it improve Manatee County ten, twenty, and thirty years from now?

If the answer is no, then it is not economic development.

It is extraction.

Better options for Port Manatee

If we need to develop Port Manatee, then let’s choose industries that build on what a port is actually for.

Here is how I would rank potential economic development ideas, from lower environmental concern to higher concern.

1. Maritime training and workforce development

This is one of the lowest-impact, highest-benefit options.

A maritime and skilled trades training center could prepare local residents for jobs connected to the port: crane operators, welders, diesel mechanics, electricians, logistics workers, marine technicians, emergency response coordinators, and equipment operators.

This type of development does not need to consume massive amounts of water or electricity.

It creates local career pathways.

It connects education to real jobs.

It gives young people and working adults a reason to stay in Manatee County.

This is the kind of development that actually invests in people.

2. Port resilience and disaster-response logistics

Port Manatee already plays an important role in moving goods and recovering after storms.

That role could be strengthened.

The port could support emergency supply staging, utility restoration equipment, building materials, water, food, fuel logistics, and hurricane recovery coordination.

That kind of development helps the public.

It makes Florida more resilient.

It supports recovery after storms.

It is directly connected to a working port.

If we are going to build anything, let’s build capacity that helps people when things go wrong.

3. Marine repair, marine manufacturing, and skilled trades

A port should support marine work.

Boat repair, barge repair, vessel maintenance, marine equipment manufacturing, fabrication, welding, and port-support services all make sense in a working port environment.

These industries are not impact-free, and they must be regulated carefully.

But they fit the purpose of a port much better than a hyperscale AI data center.

They create skilled jobs.

They support maritime commerce.

They build local expertise.

They also give Manatee County an economic identity that makes sense for where we are.

We are a coastal county with a deepwater port.

Let’s act like it.

4. Value-added agriculture and food export

Manatee County still has agricultural roots.

Instead of only shipping raw products out, we should look at ways to keep more economic value here.

That could include food packaging, produce processing, citrus-related operations, seafood processing, agricultural export support, and other value-added food systems.

This kind of development can help farmers, workers, distributors, and local businesses.

It does require water, energy, trucking, and waste controls, so it needs oversight.

But it connects to real regional needs.

It supports food systems.

It gives more back to the local economy than a facility that mostly exists to serve remote corporate computing demand.

5. Cold-chain logistics

Cold-chain logistics means refrigerated storage and transportation for food, seafood, produce, pharmaceuticals, and other temperature-sensitive products.

This can be a strong fit for a port.

It supports agriculture.

It supports imports and exports.

It can create warehouse, transportation, maintenance, and logistics jobs.

It does use electricity, so it should not get a free pass.

But compared to hyperscale AI data centers, cold-chain logistics has a clearer public benefit because it supports food, medicine, agriculture, and trade.

The question should not be whether something uses energy.

The question should be whether the energy use produces enough public benefit to justify it.

Cold-chain logistics may pass that test.

Hyperscale AI data centers at Port Manatee do not.

6. Clean energy and grid-support manufacturing

This one may use more energy than some of the lower-impact options, but it can also provide a stronger public benefit.

Manufacturing components for grid infrastructure, solar systems, transformers, battery systems, storm-hardened electrical equipment, or other resilience-related technology could make sense if done properly.

Florida’s grid needs to become stronger, not weaker.

If a port-related manufacturer helps produce equipment that improves grid resilience, storm recovery, or clean energy infrastructure, that may be worth considering.

But this category must be watched carefully.

“Clean energy” should not become a magic phrase that hides pollution, unsafe materials, or public subsidies with little accountability.

The rule should be simple:

If it strengthens public infrastructure and protects the environment, consider it.

If it only uses green language to get permits and incentives, reject it.

7. Heavy industrial expansion

This is where the risk rises.

Some heavy industry may be port-compatible, but Manatee County should be extremely cautious.

Heavy industrial projects can bring air emissions, water impacts, wastewater concerns, hazardous materials, truck traffic, emergency response demands, and long-term land-use conflicts.

Some may bring jobs.

Some may bring tax revenue.

But they can also bring decades of environmental and public health consequences.

If heavy industry is proposed, the burden should be on the applicant to prove that it will not harm water, air, surrounding communities, wildlife, emergency services, or taxpayers.

Not vague promises.

Proof.

8. Hyperscale AI data centers

This should

be at the bottom of the list.

Highest concern.

Lowest fit.

Wrong place.

Wrong priority.

A hyperscale AI data center may sound modern. It may sound profitable. It may sound like innovation.

But for Manatee County, especially at Port Manatee, the public benefit does not match the public risk.

These facilities can consume massive electricity capacity. They may require water-related cooling decisions. They can create pressure for new transmission, backup generation, utility upgrades, land conversion, and public infrastructure support. They may create fewer permanent local jobs than people assume once construction is finished.

And Port Manatee is not just empty land.

It is a working port.

It is near sensitive coastal systems.

It is part of Tampa Bay.

It is part of hurricane logistics.

It is part of regional commerce.

It should not become a private energy sink for artificial intelligence companies.

If a project consumes enormous public resources but gives little direct public benefit back, that is not smart economic development.

That is a bad trade.

The issue is not development or no development.

That is the trap.

People like to frame these debates as if there are only two choices:

Say yes to everything, or be accused of being anti-business.

That is nonsense.

The real question is:

What kind of business?

What kind of development?

Who benefits?

Who pays?

Who carries the risk?

Who gets the jobs?

Who gets the profits?

Who gets the pollution?

Who gets the utility bill?

Who gets stuck with the consequences when the glossy presentation is over?

And who gets to make the decision?

Manatee County does not have to accept every idea just because someone calls it economic development.

We can choose better.

We can choose port uses that support maritime commerce, food systems, hurricane recovery, skilled trades, workforce training, clean infrastructure, and local jobs.

We can choose development that fits the land and serves the public.

We can say yes to smart growth and no to reckless growth.

That is not anti-business.

That is responsible government.

My line in the sand

If Port Manatee is developed further, it should be developed in a way that improves Manatee County.

Not just someone’s balance sheet.

Not just a corporate energy strategy.

Not just a speculative land play.

Not just a loophole hiding under words like technology, warehouse, logistics, innovation, or port-related development.

We need to specifically define and regulate hyperscale AI data centers in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code before it is too late.

We need clear language.

We need public hearings.

We need water, power, land, traffic, emergency response, environmental, and taxpayer-impact reviews.

And at Port Manatee, we should be even more careful.

Because once the land is committed, once the infrastructure is built, once the utility demands are locked in, it becomes very hard to undo.

So let’s be clear now.

Develop Port Manatee if it strengthens Manatee County.

Develop it for maritime jobs.

Develop it for workforce training.

Develop it for disaster resilience.

Develop it for agriculture and trade.

Develop it for public benefit.

But do not sacrifice Port Manatee for hyperscale AI data centers.

And do not vote for anyone who has supported, advanced, excused, or may later revive an effort to shift Port Manatee away from local accountability.

Watch the votes.

Watch the money.

Watch the alliances.

Watch who speaks clearly and who hides behind slogans.

Port Manatee belongs in the hands of people accountable to Manatee County voters.

That is the future we need to protect before the decision is already made.

Candidate context

Several of the officials connected to the Port Authority fight are now asking voters for another term or are part of the same political structure that could bring this issue back.

Amanda Ballard is running for reelection to Manatee County Commission District 2. She faces Edward A. Bailey Jr. in the Republican primary, and Charles B. Smith Sr. has qualified as the Democrat in that race.

Mike Rahn is running for reelection to Manatee County Commission District 4. He faces Glen Gibellina in the Republican primary, and Allison S. Sneed has qualified as a write-in candidate.

Bill Conerly, who sponsored HB 4073, is running for reelection to Florida House District 72. He faces John “Captain” Phillips in the Republican primary, and Harvey Shifrin has qualified as the Democrat.

Jim Boyd is running again for Florida Senate District 20. He is unopposed in the Republican primary, while Gerald Baldi and John Houman are running in the Democratic primary.

Michael Owen is running again for Florida House District 70. He is unopposed in the Republican primary, while Luther Keith Wilkins has qualified as the Democrat.

That means voters do have choices.

And every candidate in these races should be asked one very simple question:

Will you oppose any future effort to shift control of Port Manatee away from Manatee County voters and toward a mostly state-appointed board?

Subscribe now

Share

If you learned something from this article, please consider supporting my campaign.

My Substack is where I write about the issues I am learning, researching, questioning, and sharing with the community — from local government and growth to clean water, flooding, infrastructure, animal welfare, accountability, and the future of Manatee County.

Donate

This work is unpaid and not monetized, but it takes time, research, and effort. I do it because residents deserve plain-English information about the decisions being made around them.

At the same time, I am running for Manatee County Commission District 1. I believe I am the best candidate for this seat, but I cannot win unless people are willing to invest in this campaign.

And support matters no matter where you live in Manatee County or the surrounding area. Water does not see district or county borders. Flooding, pollution, overdevelopment, infrastructure failures, and poor planning do not stop at a commission district line.

Please consider supporting this campaign by donating, sharing this article, liking it, and talking to your neighbors.

Thank you for reading, sharing, liking, donating, and helping amplify this work.

Sari Lindroos-Valimaki
sisusari.substack.com

Sources

Florida House of Representatives — HB 4073, Manatee County Port Authority

WSLR+Fogartyville — Manatee state legislators open new front in Home Rule war

Florida Politics — Amanda Ballard looks to hold GOP control of Manatee County Commission’s District

Read

Before residents are asked to support a “huge economic impact,” we deserve to know who is asking, who benefits, and what infrastructure costs come with it.

I knew the data center conversation was coming to Manatee County.

I did not expect the mailers to arrive this fast.

A friend received a glossy mailer asking Manatee County residents to take a survey “before a data center is built.” The mailer shows a large data center image, the words “huge economic impact,” a map near I-75 and Cedar Drain, and a QR code directing people to a survey through Critical Infrastructure of America.

The small print also says: “No data center has currently been approved for this area.”

That sentence matters.

Because if no data center has been approved, then residents deserve to know exactly why this mailer is already in circulation, who paid for it, who benefits from it, and what land-use pathway is being prepared.

This is not neutral public outreach from Manatee County.

This appears to be organized advocacy entering our local conversation before residents have been given the full facts.

Critical Infrastructure of America describes itself as a national advocacy organization with local reach and impact. Its stated role is to shape how infrastructure is understood in communities and policy environments where decisions are made.

That is exactly why Manatee County residents need to pay attention now.

A survey is not the same thing as informed consent.

Before anyone asks residents whether they support a data center, residents deserve answers to basic questions:

How much power would it require?

How much water would it use?

Would it require new transmission lines, substations, cooling infrastructure, or backup generation?

Who pays for the supporting infrastructure?

What happens to nearby neighborhoods?

What are the noise, heat, stormwater, traffic, emergency response, and environmental impacts?

What zoning category would allow it?

Could it slip through under light industrial, warehouse, logistics, technology, or another broad land-use category?

And most importantly: who is financially behind the push?

I am not saying every data center is bad.

I am saying hyperscale AI data centers are not ordinary warehouses. They are massive infrastructure projects with massive power, water, land, cooling, and community impacts.

That is why Manatee County must specifically define and regulate Hyperscale AI Data Centers in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code before a project is already moving through the system.

If the Comprehensive Plan does not clearly define them, then vague language could become a loophole.

And if we leave loopholes open, someone will eventually try to walk through them.

This is exactly why I started the Comprehensive Plan Watchlist.

Residents should not have to react after the pressure arrives. We should plan ahead, define the terms, close the loopholes, and protect our communities before decisions are framed as inevitable.

Manatee County needs clear rules, public hearings, infrastructure review, water and power impact analysis, environmental review, emergency planning, and full transparency before any data center proposal is treated as a done deal.

The mailer has arrived.

Now the public needs the full story.

SARI4MANATEE.COM

Campaign note: I am running for Manatee County Commission District 1 because issues like this need to be addressed before they become emergencies. If you believe Manatee County needs proactive leadership, please share this post, join my team, or support the campaign.

AI generated 40 years later possibility

I am not a land-use attorney.

I am not a planner.

But I have worked in IT and cybersecurity for nearly four decades, and I do understand systems.

And one thing I know about systems is this:

If you leave a hole open, someone will eventually use it.

That is what worries me about Manatee County’s Comprehensive Plan, especially around Port Manatee.

If the County uses vague words like “technology”, “light industrial, “warehouse”, “logistics”, “port-compatible development”, “economic development,” or “port-related development”, then a hyperscale AI data center may not need to ask for special treatment.

It may simply try to fit itself into one of those vague categories.

Not because residents asked for it.

Not because we had a real public conversation about whether this belongs near Port Manatee.

But because the language was broad enough to leave the door open.

That is how bad planning happens.

Not always through what is clearly approved.

Sometimes through what was never clearly prohibited.

And later, when residents start asking questions, we are told the rules already allow it.

That is the loophole.

And we need to close it now, before it becomes a done deal.

Why Port Manatee matters

Port Manatee is not just some empty industrial area on a map.

It sits in a very important and sensitive part of our county. It is tied to water, wetlands, transportation, emergency planning, coastal resources, public infrastructure, and the future of North Manatee.

The County’s Port Manatee Encouragement Zone uses broad language. It talks about port-compatible development. It may include manufacturing, warehouses, distribution centers, and light and heavy industrial uses.

On paper, that may sound normal.

But broad language is where loopholes live.

Because a hyperscale AI data center applicant may not come in saying:

“We want to build a massive facility that needs huge amounts of power, cooling, backup generators, utility capacity, and possibly water.”

They may call it technology.

They may call it light industrial.

They may call it warehouse.

They may call it logistics.

They may call it port-compatible.

They may call it port-related.

And unless the County clearly defines what these facilities are, and clearly says where they are not allowed, residents may only find out after the process is already moving.

That is backwards.

The three-mile port loophole

There is another piece of this that residents need to understand.

“Port-related development” sounds specific, but if it is not clearly defined, it can become very broad.

In plain English, port-related development usually means development that supports, serves, or depends on the port. That can include things like warehousing, freight, logistics, cargo handling, distribution, cold storage, industrial support, fuel or energy support, and other uses tied to port activity.

Manatee County’s own materials explain that, under Florida law, port-related uses within three miles of SeaPort Manatee may be exempt from DRI thresholds.

DRI means Development of Regional Impact. It was the older state-level review process for very large projects.

So in plain English:

If a developer can describe a project as “port-related,” and it is within three miles of the port, it may avoid a level of regional-impact review that other large projects might have triggered under that older framework.

That does not automatically mean everything is allowed.

It does not erase zoning.

It does not erase future land-use rules.

It does not erase environmental review, wetlands review, stormwater rules, traffic review, utility capacity, or permitting.

But it does mean Manatee County has created or recognized an incentive area where large projects tied to the port may move more easily.

That is why the wording matters.

The danger is not the port itself.

The danger is a broad phrase like “port-related development” becoming a basket that almost anything can be placed into if the definitions are loose enough.

A warehouse may be port-related if it stores cargo moving through the port.

A logistics hub may be port-related if it supports freight movement.

A cold-storage facility may be port-related if it handles imported food or perishables.

But a hyperscale AI data center?

That should not automatically become “port-related” just because it wants industrial land, power, water, fiber, or proximity to infrastructure.

That is the loophole.

A data center could try to present itself as technology infrastructure, industrial support, economic development, utility-intensive development, or even “port-compatible” if the plan does not clearly say what is and is not included.

What are we actually talking about?

A lot of people hear “data center” and imagine a quiet office building with computers inside.

That is not what I am talking about.

A hyperscale AI data center is a large facility filled with computer servers, networking equipment, storage systems, and processors used for cloud computing, artificial intelligence, or other high-demand computing.

In normal-people language, it is a huge building full of machines that need massive power, cooling, backup systems, and infrastructure.

This is not just a “technology” use.

It is a major infrastructure use.

And if Manatee County is serious about protecting residents, taxpayers, water, wetlands, coastal resources, and future infrastructure, then the County needs to treat it that way.

This is not about being anti-technology

I want to be very clear about this.

This is not about being anti-technology.

I use AI.

I have worked in IT and cybersecurity for nearly four decades.

I understand technology enough to know that technology still has physical consequences.

Power is real.

Water is real.

Cooling is real.

Heat is real.

Backup generators are real.

Noise is real.

Storm resilience is real.

Wetlands are real.

Taxpayer-funded infrastructure is real.

And once something is built, it is very hard to undo.

So no, this is not about fearing technology.

It is about planning honestly for what the technology actually requires.

The fix is simple: define it before someone exploits it

The County should define “port-related development” narrowly.

Suggested language:

Port-related development shall mean uses directly dependent on maritime cargo, vessel operations, freight movement, port security, customs, storage, processing, or transportation of goods through SeaPort Manatee. The term shall not include hyperscale data centers, artificial-intelligence data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, high-load computing campuses, or other large-load digital infrastructure unless expressly approved by Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning text amendment.

That one definition matters.

Because the three-mile port exemption area should not become a loophole for any large industrial project to call itself “port-related.”

Port-related should mean directly tied to maritime cargo, freight, vessels, storage, customs, and transportation through the port.

Not hyperscale AI data centers.

Not cryptocurrency mining.

Not high-load digital infrastructure.

Not anything someone wants to squeeze into the category because the land is industrial and the phrase is vague.

If the County does not define this clearly now, residents may be told later that these projects were allowed by omission.

Define hyperscale data centers too

The County should also add a specific definition for hyperscale AI data centers and large-load computing facilities.

Suggested language:

Large-scale data center, hyperscale data center, artificial-intelligence data center, cryptocurrency mining facility, or large-load computing facility means any facility primarily used to house computer servers, data storage, networking equipment, cloud computing systems, artificial intelligence processing, cryptocurrency mining, or similar high-density computing operations that require substantial electrical capacity, cooling infrastructure, water consumption, backup generation, utility upgrades, or other major infrastructure support.

That may sound technical, but the point is simple.

You cannot regulate something clearly if you refuse to define it clearly.

Say where it does not belong

The County should also clearly state that these uses are not allowed in the Port Manatee and Gateway areas unless the public first goes through a major policy change.

Suggested language:

“Large-scale data centers, hyperscale artificial-intelligence data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and similar high-load computing facilities shall not be permitted uses within PDPM, PDEZ, port-related planned development districts, the Port Manatee Encouragement Zone, Gateway industrial areas, or any Future Land Use category intended for port-compatible development, public/semi-public port operations, or gateway industrial development.”

That is the kind of language that matters.

Because without it, someone may argue that a data center is just another industrial use.

Or just technology.

Or just a warehouse.

Or just infrastructure.

Or just port-compatible.

And that is exactly the problem.

Remove the word games

This is the part I think is most important.

The County should not allow these facilities to be renamed into approval.

The plan should say something like:

“Such facilities shall not be classified, interpreted, approved, or permitted as light industrial, warehouse, distribution, logistics, research, office, technology, public utility, essential services, infrastructure, manufacturing, port-compatible, or port-related uses unless expressly authorized through a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning text amendment.”

That one sentence closes a huge loophole.

Because if a hyperscale AI data center can be called light industrial, then residents may not get the clear public debate they deserve.

If it can be called technology, it sounds harmless.

If it can be called logistics or warehouse, it may slide into a category never written for this kind of use.

And if it can be called port-compatible or port-related, then residents are left fighting after the applicant has already found the weak spot in the plan.

Again, that is backwards.

Require a real public process

Any proposal for a large-scale data center or high-load computing facility should require a real public process.

Not quiet staff interpretation.

Not administrative approval.

Not “don’t worry, we looked at it.”

A project like this should require:

A Comprehensive Plan amendment.

A zoning text amendment.

Rezoning, if needed.

Public hearings.

Mailed notice.

Utility capacity analysis.

Water supply analysis.

Environmental review.

Infrastructure impact analysis.

Emergency-service review.

Compatibility findings.

And a clear explanation of who pays for any upgrades the project requires.

Because if a project needs more power, more water capacity, road improvements, stormwater changes, emergency-service expansion, or other public infrastructure, residents deserve to know that before approval.

Not after.

The County also needs the right to say no

This is another important piece.

The County should not just create a process that leads to automatic approval.

The County needs clear denial criteria.

It should be able to deny a hyperscale data center or high-load computing facility if it increases public costs for electric, water, wastewater, stormwater, roadways, emergency services, or other infrastructure.

It should be able to deny the project if it requires utility upgrades that are not fully paid for by the applicant.

It should be able to deny it if it creates heat, noise, diesel-generator, water-supply, wetland, flooding, air-quality, coastal-resource, or hurricane-resilience impacts.

It should be able to deny it if it conflicts with port priorities, environmental resources, residential areas, agricultural lands, coastal resources, or the long-term public interest.

Because growth should not mean private companies get the benefit while residents get the burden.

What we need to watch next

This is why residents need to keep an eye on Port Manatee, the Port Manatee Encouragement Zone, the Gateway area, future land-use changes, zoning text amendments, utility planning, and anything described as port-related, port-compatible, industrial, logistics, technology, or infrastructure.

The next big proposal may not say “hyperscale AI data center” in the headline.

It may show up as a warehouse.

Or a technology campus.

Or a utility-intensive industrial project.

Or logistics.

Or port support.

Or economic development.

So we need to watch the language.

We need to watch the maps.

We need to watch the Planning Commission agendas.

We need to watch the Board of County Commissioners agendas.

We need to watch Port Authority meetings.

We need to watch utility-capacity discussions.

We need to watch amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.

Because this is how these things happen.

Not always with a big announcement.

Sometimes with one vague phrase, one map change, one staff interpretation, one agenda item, one “compatible use,” and one meeting most residents did not know they needed to attend.

Close the loophole now

The County needs to do three things.

Define port-related development narrowly.

Define hyperscale data centers and large-load computing facilities clearly.

And make sure they cannot be slipped in under vague labels like light industrial, technology, logistics, warehouse, public utility, port-compatible, or port-related development.

If a project of this size is ever proposed, it should require a full Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning text amendment, public hearings, mailed notice, environmental review, utility capacity analysis, water supply analysis, and compatibility findings.

No shortcuts.

No word games.

No surprise approvals.

Because if it is not clearly prohibited, it may be allowed by omission.

And that is not planning.

That is how residents get blindsided.

Define it now, or fight over the interpretation later.

On a personal note, I have 24 hours left to raise about $700 to make the ballot.

If you have ever read my Substack, enjoyed it, shared it, or learned something from it, please consider donating toward my participation fee.

If we make it, the only Democrat running in this race will be on the ballot in November against one of the eight Republican candidates.

Every $5, $10, or $25 helps right now.

Thank you for helping keep this choice alive.

Image by ChatGPT

Sometimes I write because I have something to say.

Sometimes I write because I am angry.

Sometimes I write because I am trying to explain a local issue that should have been explained to the public before decisions were made.

And sometimes I write only to remind myself what I learned.

Today was one of those days.

I am not writing this as medical advice. I am writing it as a chronically curious person with a chronically complicated body.

Today I went down a rabbit hole about glutathione, which I had always heard described as the “master antioxidant.” That phrase sounds a little wellness-influencer-ish, so naturally I wanted to understand what it actually means.

What I learned is that glutathione is not some mysterious magic molecule. It is a tiny tripeptide, made from three amino acids: glutamic acid, cysteine, and glycine. Tiny, but important. It is produced naturally in the body, especially by the liver, and it plays a major role in protecting cells from oxidative stress.

Or, in plain English: it helps keep the body from rusting from the inside.

That image helped me understand it.

We talk about inflammation like it is one thing, but inflammation is often a chain reaction. Something stresses the body. Cells get damaged. Oxidative stress builds. The body tries to respond. Sometimes the response helps. Sometimes the response becomes part of the problem.

That is where glutathione seems to matter.

I was especially interested in the liver connection because so much of what we put into our bodies has to be processed there. Medications, environmental exposure, alcohol, toxins, food additives, all of it eventually asks something of the liver. For people with chronic illnesses, autoimmune disease, or long-term medication use, that question becomes even more important.

The liver is not just a filter. It is a processing plant.

And glutathione is one of the tools that processing plant uses.

That made me think about my own body differently. I have rheumatoid arthritis. I have taken serious medications. I have had years where my body felt like it was running a war inside itself. So when I learn about inflammation, detoxification pathways, oxidative stress, and immune regulation, I am not learning it as an abstract science project.

I am learning it as someone who has lived in a body that has not always cooperated.

One thing I learned today is that glutathione is connected to fatty liver disease because fat in the liver can undergo something called lipid peroxidation. That sounds complicated, but the simplest way I understood it is this: fat cells in the liver can become oxidized, which can trigger inflammation and eventually damage. Glutathione appears to help interrupt some of that oxidative stress.

That does not mean it is a miracle cure.

That means the mechanism is worth understanding.

And there is a big difference between those two things.

I also learned that oral glutathione is not always straightforward. Because it is a small protein-like molecule, the digestive system can break it down before much of it reaches the bloodstream. That is why people talk about liposomal glutathione, IV glutathione, injections, or precursors like NAC.

NAC was interesting to me because instead of giving the body glutathione directly, it gives the body one of the building blocks it needs to make more of its own. That makes sense to me. Sometimes the better question is not, “What can I add?” but “What does the body need in order to do what it was already designed to do?”

Then I got into the delivery-method rabbit hole.

And this is where the learning became less about “interesting science” and more about “slow down, Sari.”

Because when something is injectable, the stakes change.

The internet makes everything look casual. A vial, a syringe, a few numbers, and suddenly people are acting like they are running a medical clinic from a bathroom counter. But sterile injectable substances are not the same as taking a vitamin. They bypass many of the body’s natural defenses. If there is contamination, bad math, improper storage, or poor technique, the consequences can be serious.

That was probably the most important thing I learned today.

The math matters, but sterility matters more.

The dose matters, but route matters more.

The “what” matters, but the “how” may be where the danger lives.

I learned that when a powder is reconstituted, the final volume is not always exactly the amount of liquid added. The powder itself takes up space. That means concentration can be slightly different than a person assumes if they only calculate based on how much sterile water was added.

That was fascinating to me because it is such a systems problem.

The label says one thing. The vial contains another physical reality. The liquid volume changes. The concentration changes. Then the dose calculation changes.

This is exactly the kind of thing I like learning because it reminds me how easily people can be confidently wrong when they skip the mechanics.

But again, this is not a DIY instruction. This is where a person needs a trained medical professional, proper supplies, sterile handling, and monitoring.

I also learned that glutathione has a sulfur smell because cysteine contains sulfur. Apparently that strong rotten-egg smell can be normal. I found that oddly reassuring and horrifying at the same time.

Science is glamorous until it smells like eggs.

The safety part is what stayed with me most.

Once something sterile is mixed, it does not stay magically safe forever. Storage matters. Refrigeration matters. Preservatives matter. Time matters. Oxidation matters. Bacteria matter. The source of the compound matters.

And with anything affecting liver detoxification pathways, lab monitoring matters too. AST, ALT, and other blood markers are not just numbers on a portal. They are feedback from the body.

That is probably my biggest takeaway:

Curiosity is good. Research is good. Understanding your own body is good.

But curiosity is not the same as permission to be reckless.

I like learning because it gives me language. It gives me structure. It takes something vague and makes it understandable. But learning about a mechanism does not make me a clinician. Reading about a molecule does not replace medical supervision. Understanding the math does not remove the risks.

Actually, the more I learned today, the more cautious I became.

And maybe that is the best kind of learning.

Not the kind that makes you overconfident.

The kind that makes you respect the system.

Today I learned that glutathione is a tiny molecule with a big job. I learned that the liver is doing more work than most of us appreciate. I learned that oxidative stress is not just a buzzword. I learned that delivery methods can change everything. I learned that sterile injectables deserve real respect.

And I learned, again, that the human body is not simple.

It is a system.

And systems thinking applies everywhere — in cybersecurity, in county planning, in water quality, in infrastructure, and apparently even in tiny sulfur-smelling molecules inside our cells.

So I am writing this down mostly for myself.

Because I like to learn.

And because sometimes the most important thing I learn is not “here is the answer.”

Sometimes it is:

Now I understand the question better.

Sources / Further Reading

Glutathione Homeostasis and Functions: Potential Targets for Medical Interventions
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3303626/

Glutathione-Related Enzymes and Proteins: A Review
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9919958/

N-acetylcysteine — a Safe Antidote for Cysteine/Glutathione Deficiency
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4540061/

N-Acetylcysteine (NAC): Impacts on Human Health
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8234027/

Changes in Glutathione Content in Liver Diseases: An Update
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7997318/

Oxidative Stress in Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: An Updated Mini Review
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.595371/full

FDA: Concerns with Using Glutathione to Compound Sterile Injectable Drugs
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/human-drug-compounding/fda-highlights-concerns-using-dietary-ingredient-glutathione-compound-sterile-injectables

Seven Cases of Probable Endotoxin Poisoning Related to Contaminated Compounded Glutathione
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6088536/

Image by Gemini

Growth requires more than houses. It requires roads, schools, parks, public safety, water, wastewater systems, and long-term planning. So who pays for it all?

If Manatee County continues growing as planned, who pays for everything that growth requires?

New residents need roads.

They need schools.

They need parks.

They need libraries.

They need law enforcement.

They need fire protection.

They need drinking water.

They need wastewater treatment.

They need stormwater systems.

None of those things appear by magic.

Someone pays.

The Promise

Throughout the Comprehensive Plan, the County repeatedly emphasizes that growth should occur where infrastructure can support it.

On paper, that sounds reasonable.

The idea is that development should follow infrastructure rather than infrastructure constantly struggling to catch up with development.

The question residents should ask is:

Has that happened?

Or has infrastructure been playing catch-up for years?

What Residents Experience

Most residents don't read planning documents.

They experience growth differently.

They experience it sitting in traffic.

They experience it when schools become crowded.

They experience it when flooding worsens.

They experience it when emergency response times increase.

They experience it when roads that once worked no longer function during rush hour.

Those experiences are often the first indication that infrastructure may not be keeping pace with development.

Impact Fees: The Growth Pays for Growth Theory

One of the primary tools local governments use is impact fees.

The theory is simple.

New development creates demand for infrastructure.

New development should help pay for the infrastructure needed to support that growth.

Impact fees may contribute toward:

• Roads

• Schools

• Libraries

• Parks

• Public safety facilities

The goal is to avoid shifting all growth-related costs onto existing residents.

The challenge, however, is that impact fees rarely cover every long-term cost associated with growth.

[and for a long time we didn't collect it]

Infrastructure must also be operated, maintained, repaired, and eventually replaced.

The Question I Keep Coming Back To

As I read through these documents, I find myself asking the same question over and over:

Are we building communities, or are we building rooftops?

Housing is important.

But communities require more than homes.

They require services.

Amenities.

Employment opportunities.

Transportation options.

Recreation.

Environmental protection.

And infrastructure capable of supporting the people who live there.

District 1 and the Growth Conversation

This question feels especially relevant in District 1.

The North River area continues to experience tremendous growth.

New neighborhoods appear almost overnight.

Yet many residents continue asking the same questions:

Where are the roads?

Where are the services?

Where are the amenities?

Where is the infrastructure that was supposed to accompany the growth?

Those questions deserve answers.

My Takeaway

Growth itself is not the issue.

Poorly planned growth is.

The Comprehensive Plan contains many references to infrastructure planning, concurrency, service levels, and growth management.

The challenge is not writing those policies.

The challenge is implementing them.

As I continue reading, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the real debate is not whether Manatee County will grow.

It will.

The real debate is whether infrastructure, services, and quality of life will keep pace with that growth.

That may ultimately be one of the most important questions facing our county.

As always, I'm not a planner or policy expert. I'm simply a curious resident reading the Comprehensive Plan, translating what I learn into plain English, and sharing my observations.

Trust but verify.

When Public Decisions Are Hard to Understand, Confusion Fills the Room

The Task Force 11 discussion is a reminder that Manatee County needs clearer explanations.

At the June 16, 2026 Manatee County Board of County Commissioners meeting, the board discussed Task Force 11, a proposed multi-agency emergency response task force for Manatee County.

I was there. I spoke during public comment. I supported the Task Force 11 item.

I supported it because it was a reasonable public safety readiness decision.

This was not new money.

It was not a new tax.

It was not new borrowing.

It was not money being pulled away from roads, parks, animal services, or some unrelated community need.

It was not money leaving Public Safety.

The $500,000 was already within Public Safety. The vote was about setting aside existing Public Safety funds for a specific Public Safety purpose: helping Manatee County move forward with state assessment and designation for Task Force 11. [~2:11:22–2:12:09]

That distinction matters.

One misunderstanding I have seen is the idea that this money was somehow being taken away from Public Safety. That is not how this item worked. This was Public Safety money being set aside for a Public Safety purpose.

Task Force 11 is not separate from public safety. It is public safety.

It is about preparing Manatee County for complex emergencies that ordinary day-to-day response systems may not be designed to handle alone.

From the county’s explanation, Manatee County already has trained people, equipment, and specialized emergency response resources across multiple agencies. Task Force 11 would organize those resources into a formal, coordinated structure recognized by the State of Florida. [~1:18:35–1:24:00]

In plain language, Manatee County has already invested in much of the training, equipment, and expertise. This item was about putting those pieces together in a way that can be assessed, recognized, and used as a state-designated task force.

The $500,000 set-aside was not “let’s go spend half a million dollars on something random.”

It was closer to this:

“We already have much of the training, equipment, and expertise. Now we need to set aside existing Public Safety funds so the county can move through the state assessment and designation process and show that Manatee County has the capacity to support Task Force 11 if needed.”

That is a very different thing.

That matters because not every emergency is a normal emergency.

Some emergencies require specialized training and specialized equipment. These may include building collapses, trench rescues, high-angle rescues, hazardous materials incidents, marine rescues, swift water rescues, hurricanes, and other major disasters.

Not every fire station needs to carry every specialized tool every day. But the county does need to know where those tools are, who is trained to use them, and how those people and resources will work together when something serious happens.

That is planning.

That is readiness.

That is systems thinking.

Another important part of the discussion was the state role.

Staff explained that FEMA reimbursement can take a long time. He also explained that when a state-designated asset operates in the county, the state may absorb certain costs and pursue reimbursement through the state process. He described the possible financial impact as “millions of dollars at the end of the day.” [~1:35:55–1:36:10]

That does not mean the state automatically pays Manatee County back for everything.

It does not mean the county gets a blank check.

It does not mean the $500,000 is automatically reimbursed.

But it does mean state designation can matter financially during major emergency response. Instead of the county carrying the full cost locally and waiting a long time for FEMA reimbursement, some eligible costs may move through the state system when the task force is operating as a state-designated asset.

Commissioner Ballard also summarized her understanding that there were significant financial benefits connected to reimbursement from the state. [~1:41:38–1:41:43]

That is important because disaster response gets expensive very quickly.

When a major emergency happens, counties often have to act first and deal with reimbursement later. If Task Force 11 improves Manatee County’s readiness and also improves the pathway for state support or reimbursement, that is worth taking seriously.

So yes, I supported the decision.

But this article is not only about Task Force 11.

It is about what happens when the public is left to react before the facts are easy to understand.

People heard “$500,000” and reacted.

That is understandable. A half-million dollars is real money, and residents should ask questions.

But residents should not have to guess what kind of money it is.

Was it new money?

Was it already-budgeted money?

Was it being moved from another department?

Was it staying inside Public Safety?

Was it being spent immediately?

Was it being set aside for readiness?

Was it a one-time cost or an ongoing obligation?

Did it help the county qualify for state support or reimbursement?

Those questions should be answered clearly before the public has to react.

Otherwise, everyone wastes time.

Residents waste time getting angry about something that may not have been explained clearly enough.

Commissioners waste time responding to confusion instead of focusing on the actual policy choice.

Staff wastes time explaining basic facts after the misunderstanding has already taken hold.

Audience and public commenters end up disagreeing over what they think happened instead of discussing what actually happened.

That is not a good process.

This is not about telling people not to question government.

People absolutely should question government.

People should question spending.

People should challenge decisions.

People should show up, speak up, and ask hard questions.

But public comment is only as useful as the information people have.

If people think the county is approving new money when the county is actually setting aside already-approved Public Safety funds, the debate starts in the wrong place.

If people think the money is being taken away from Public Safety when it is actually being used inside Public Safety for emergency readiness, the debate starts in the wrong place.

If people think the task force is a brand-new department when it is actually organizing existing trained people, equipment, and resources, the debate starts in the wrong place.

If people do not understand the state designation process or the reimbursement pathway, the debate starts in the wrong place.

That does not mean people are wrong to ask questions.

It means the county needs to explain the issue more clearly before frustration takes over.

Several public commenters and politically active residents raised concerns about the Task Force 11 item.

I do not see that as the main story.

To me, the bigger story is the process.

If people who attend meetings, speak publicly, follow county government, and run for office can still argue over the basic facts of an agenda item, imagine how confusing this process is for regular residents who have jobs, families, and limited time.

The county should not make people work this hard to understand what is being voted on.

And people should not be put in a position where they react to incomplete information, then have to defend that reaction after the facts become clearer.

We can do better than that.

One possible solution would be a simple public-facing agenda summary for confusing items.

I am not saying this exact idea has to be adopted. I am not pretending it would solve everything. I also do not expect county staff to magically change the entire process overnight.

But I do think it is worth suggesting because the current process often leaves residents trying to piece together basic facts from staff reports, budget language, meeting discussion, and public comment.

A plain-language template could answer the questions residents naturally ask:

What are we voting on?

Why are we voting on it?

Where does the money come from?

Is this new money or already-approved money?

Is the money leaving one department, or staying within the same department for a specific purpose?

What fund is being used?

What can the money be used for?

Is this a one-time cost or ongoing cost?

What happens if we vote yes?

What happens if we vote no?

Are there state or federal reimbursement opportunities?

What are the long-term obligations?

What is the plain-English version?

This would not replace the agenda packet.

It would not replace staff reports.

It would not replace public comment.

It would simply give residents a clearer starting point.

AI could even help draft a first version, with staff reviewing it for accuracy. The point is not to add more bureaucracy. The point is to reduce confusion before it turns into frustration.

That would save time.

It would improve public comment.

It would help commissioners spend less time untangling misunderstandings.

And it would help residents know when something truly deserves outrage and when something is actually a reasonable investment.

Here are my takeaways from the Task Force 11 discussion:

First, this was not new money. It was existing Public Safety money being set aside as a reserve for a Public Safety purpose.

Second, Task Force 11 is about emergency readiness. It organizes trained personnel, equipment, and specialized resources that already exist.

Third, state designation matters. It can affect how certain emergency response costs are handled during major incidents.

Fourth, the public had fair questions. The problem is that the basic answers were not easy enough to understand before the argument began.

Fifth, Manatee County can do better. Clearer summary explanations, before votes would save time, reduce frustration, and improve public trust.

I support the Task Force 11 decision.

I also believe Manatee County needs a better process so residents are not left guessing what their government is actually voting on.

The county could have avoided a lot of confusion by saying clearly:

This is already-budgeted Public Safety money.

This is a set-aside, not a new spending.

This money stays within Public Safety for a Public Safety purpose.

This helps Manatee County seek state designation as Task Force 11.

This formalizes trained personnel, equipment, and specialized resources that already exist.

This may improve how certain emergency response costs are handled through state reimbursement pathways.

This is about readiness for complex emergencies that ordinary day-to-day response systems are not designed to handle alone.

That explanation would have changed the public conversation.

The lesson is not that residents should stop questioning government.

They absolutely should keep questioning government.

The lesson is that county government should make it easier for residents to understand what they are questioning.

Transparency is not just posting a long agenda packet online.

Transparency is not just holding a meeting and expecting people to follow staff language, budget language, and commissioner back-and-forth.

Transparency means explaining public decisions in plain language before the vote happens.

Public safety matters.

Public understanding matters too.

Both should be treated as part of the job.

Note: Timestamps are approximate because YouTube captions and playback can vary by device. The Task Force 11 overview is around [~1:18:35–1:24:00], the state reimbursement discussion is around [~1:35:55–1:36:10], Commissioner Ballard’s reimbursement clarification is around [~1:41:38–1:41:43], public comment begins around [~1:51:55], and the later clarification/motion language is around [~2:11:22–2:12:09].

Adopt-A-Palooza is coming up June 20, and I want every adoptable animal there to find a safe, loving home.

The last time I went, it was not just an adoption event. It was a full of wagging tails, excited dogs, friendly faces, pet-loving vendors, and those beautiful “furever home” moments that remind you why this work matters.

It was happy. It was hopeful. It was exactly the kind of event people should attend.

So yes — please go.

Adopt if you are ready. Foster if you can. Donate if you are able. Support the vendors, volunteers, rescues, and staff. Share the event. Tell your friends. Help get as many dogs adopted as possible before the worst of Florida’s summer heat settles in.

Because every dog adopted is one less dog waiting in the heat.

But I also want us to talk honestly about what happens before adoption day.

I wrote before about the challenges and terrible conditions at the Palmetto shelter. Now, with animals being housed at the Bishop location, I am concerned that we have not solved the underlying problem — we may have simply moved it.

At Bishop, the dogs are now facing even more heat and sun exposure. In Florida, that is not a small issue. Heat, direct sun, stress, noise, and inadequate shelter design all affect animal welfare. This is not just about comfort. It is about health, safety, and humane care.

Adoption events are wonderful. But we cannot let a happy adoption event cover up the harder question:

Are we building a shelter system that is actually safe, humane, storm-resilient, heat-conscious, and designed for the animals who have to live there every day?

A recent motion to even look more seriously at the shelter facility cost issue did not receive a second.

That should bother us.

Because animal welfare is not just the moment a dog gets adopted.

It is the kennel they sleep in.

It is the shade they do or do not have.

It is the heat they endure.

It is the noise, stress, ventilation, medical care, quarantine space, storm protection, and daily conditions before anyone ever sees their adoption photo.

For the dogs’ sake, Manatee County needs to stop treating shelter planning as a temporary patchwork problem.

We need a long-term, humane, Florida-appropriate animal welfare facility plan.

But on June 20, we also need people to show up.

Go meet the dogs. Go support the event. Go be part of someone’s furever home story.

Event link:

https://www.mymanatee.org/aap

A BIG thank you to everyone who helped make this possible.

To every volunteer, donor, friend, neighbor, supporter, petition signer, ride-giver, door-knocker, encourager, and believer — thank you.

This campaign season has been full of highs, lows, surprises, heartbreak, and moments I will never forget.

There were days I was trying to campaign, attend Board of County Commission meetings, show up for public comment, collect petitions, meet voters — and do it all without a car. I had to ask friends, supporters, and sometimes even people who could have been political opponents for rides. Our community needs better public transportation options.

There were days when amazing volunteers showed up for me, knocked doors with me, believed in me, and helped carry this campaign forward. And there were days when support disappeared suddenly, almost like the rug had been pulled out from under my feet.

There were voters who were so happy to see someone show up at their door and listen. There were others who were angry, skeptical, or frustrated — and yes, some of them were Democrats too. That is part of democracy. People are tired. People are hurt. People want to be heard.

Along the way, not everyone who started this race made it to the ballot. Some campaigns ended because circumstances changed. Some people could not qualify. Some stepped back for personal reasons, financial reasons, timing, or simply because running for office is harder than most people realize until they are in it.

To everyone who put their name forward, collected petitions, asked for support, walked neighborhoods, filed paperwork, attended meetings, or tried to give voters another choice: thank you.

It takes courage to run.

It takes courage to ask people to believe in you.

It takes courage to keep showing up when things are uncertain, when money is tight, when help falls through, when people misunderstand you, or when the path keeps getting harder.

To those who did not make it this time: please do not see that as failure. You stepped forward. You tried. You learned. And I sincerely hope you run again.

To those who qualified and made it to the ballot: congratulations. I know what it took to get here, and I respect the work, stress, sacrifice, and persistence behind that milestone.

This process has reminded me that campaigns are not just about candidates. They are about volunteers, donors, friends, neighbors, rides, doors, phone calls, encouragement, disappointment, and the people who keep showing up anyway.

I am grateful for everyone who tried, everyone who helped, everyone who believed, and everyone who made this election possible.

Now the next chapter begins.

Don’t be Sorry — Vote for Sari.

Until then 

Please Donate, Share, Volunteer and Host a Meet and Greet or Make Calls

AI generated 40 years later possibility

I am not a land-use attorney.

I am not a planner.

But I have worked in IT and cybersecurity for nearly four decades, and I do understand systems.

And one thing I know about systems is this:

If you leave a hole open, someone will eventually use it.

That is what worries me about Manatee County’s Comprehensive Plan, especially around Port Manatee.

If the County uses vague words like “technology”, “light industrial, “warehouse”, “logistics”, “port-compatible development”, “economic development,” or “port-related development”, then a hyperscale AI data center may not need to ask for special treatment.

It may simply try to fit itself into one of those vague categories.

Not because residents asked for it.

Not because we had a real public conversation about whether this belongs near Port Manatee.

But because the language was broad enough to leave the door open.

That is how bad planning happens.

Not always through what is clearly approved.

Sometimes through what was never clearly prohibited.

And later, when residents start asking questions, we are told the rules already allow it.

That is the loophole.

And we need to close it now, before it becomes a done deal.

Why Port Manatee matters

Port Manatee is not just some empty industrial area on a map.

It sits in a very important and sensitive part of our county. It is tied to water, wetlands, transportation, emergency planning, coastal resources, public infrastructure, and the future of North Manatee.

The County’s Port Manatee Encouragement Zone uses broad language. It talks about port-compatible development. It may include manufacturing, warehouses, distribution centers, and light and heavy industrial uses.

On paper, that may sound normal.

But broad language is where loopholes live.

Because a hyperscale AI data center applicant may not come in saying:

“We want to build a massive facility that needs huge amounts of power, cooling, backup generators, utility capacity, and possibly water.”

They may call it technology.

They may call it light industrial.

They may call it warehouse.

They may call it logistics.

They may call it port-compatible.

They may call it port-related.

And unless the County clearly defines what these facilities are, and clearly says where they are not allowed, residents may only find out after the process is already moving.

That is backwards.

The three-mile port loophole

There is another piece of this that residents need to understand.

“Port-related development” sounds specific, but if it is not clearly defined, it can become very broad.

In plain English, port-related development usually means development that supports, serves, or depends on the port. That can include things like warehousing, freight, logistics, cargo handling, distribution, cold storage, industrial support, fuel or energy support, and other uses tied to port activity.

Manatee County’s own materials explain that, under Florida law, port-related uses within three miles of SeaPort Manatee may be exempt from DRI thresholds.

DRI means Development of Regional Impact. It was the older state-level review process for very large projects.

So in plain English:

If a developer can describe a project as “port-related,” and it is within three miles of the port, it may avoid a level of regional-impact review that other large projects might have triggered under that older framework.

That does not automatically mean everything is allowed.

It does not erase zoning.

It does not erase future land-use rules.

It does not erase environmental review, wetlands review, stormwater rules, traffic review, utility capacity, or permitting.

But it does mean Manatee County has created or recognized an incentive area where large projects tied to the port may move more easily.

That is why the wording matters.

The danger is not the port itself.

The danger is a broad phrase like “port-related development” becoming a basket that almost anything can be placed into if the definitions are loose enough.

A warehouse may be port-related if it stores cargo moving through the port.

A logistics hub may be port-related if it supports freight movement.

A cold-storage facility may be port-related if it handles imported food or perishables.

But a hyperscale AI data center?

That should not automatically become “port-related” just because it wants industrial land, power, water, fiber, or proximity to infrastructure.

That is the loophole.

A data center could try to present itself as technology infrastructure, industrial support, economic development, utility-intensive development, or even “port-compatible” if the plan does not clearly say what is and is not included.

What are we actually talking about?

A lot of people hear “data center” and imagine a quiet office building with computers inside.

That is not what I am talking about.

A hyperscale AI data center is a large facility filled with computer servers, networking equipment, storage systems, and processors used for cloud computing, artificial intelligence, or other high-demand computing.

In normal-people language, it is a huge building full of machines that need massive power, cooling, backup systems, and infrastructure.

This is not just a “technology” use.

It is a major infrastructure use.

And if Manatee County is serious about protecting residents, taxpayers, water, wetlands, coastal resources, and future infrastructure, then the County needs to treat it that way.

This is not about being anti-technology

I want to be very clear about this.

This is not about being anti-technology.

I use AI.

I have worked in IT and cybersecurity for nearly four decades.

I understand technology enough to know that technology still has physical consequences.

Power is real.

Water is real.

Cooling is real.

Heat is real.

Backup generators are real.

Noise is real.

Storm resilience is real.

Wetlands are real.

Taxpayer-funded infrastructure is real.

And once something is built, it is very hard to undo.

So no, this is not about fearing technology.

It is about planning honestly for what the technology actually requires.

The fix is simple: define it before someone exploits it

The County should define “port-related development” narrowly.

Suggested language:

Port-related development shall mean uses directly dependent on maritime cargo, vessel operations, freight movement, port security, customs, storage, processing, or transportation of goods through SeaPort Manatee. The term shall not include hyperscale data centers, artificial-intelligence data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, high-load computing campuses, or other large-load digital infrastructure unless expressly approved by Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning text amendment.

That one definition matters.

Because the three-mile port exemption area should not become a loophole for any large industrial project to call itself “port-related.”

Port-related should mean directly tied to maritime cargo, freight, vessels, storage, customs, and transportation through the port.

Not hyperscale AI data centers.

Not cryptocurrency mining.

Not high-load digital infrastructure.

Not anything someone wants to squeeze into the category because the land is industrial and the phrase is vague.

If the County does not define this clearly now, residents may be told later that these projects were allowed by omission.

Define hyperscale data centers too

The County should also add a specific definition for hyperscale AI data centers and large-load computing facilities.

Suggested language:

Large-scale data center, hyperscale data center, artificial-intelligence data center, cryptocurrency mining facility, or large-load computing facility means any facility primarily used to house computer servers, data storage, networking equipment, cloud computing systems, artificial intelligence processing, cryptocurrency mining, or similar high-density computing operations that require substantial electrical capacity, cooling infrastructure, water consumption, backup generation, utility upgrades, or other major infrastructure support.

That may sound technical, but the point is simple.

You cannot regulate something clearly if you refuse to define it clearly.

Say where it does not belong

The County should also clearly state that these uses are not allowed in the Port Manatee and Gateway areas unless the public first goes through a major policy change.

Suggested language:

“Large-scale data centers, hyperscale artificial-intelligence data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and similar high-load computing facilities shall not be permitted uses within PDPM, PDEZ, port-related planned development districts, the Port Manatee Encouragement Zone, Gateway industrial areas, or any Future Land Use category intended for port-compatible development, public/semi-public port operations, or gateway industrial development.”

That is the kind of language that matters.

Because without it, someone may argue that a data center is just another industrial use.

Or just technology.

Or just a warehouse.

Or just infrastructure.

Or just port-compatible.

And that is exactly the problem.

Remove the word games

This is the part I think is most important.

The County should not allow these facilities to be renamed into approval.

The plan should say something like:

“Such facilities shall not be classified, interpreted, approved, or permitted as light industrial, warehouse, distribution, logistics, research, office, technology, public utility, essential services, infrastructure, manufacturing, port-compatible, or port-related uses unless expressly authorized through a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning text amendment.”

That one sentence closes a huge loophole.

Because if a hyperscale AI data center can be called light industrial, then residents may not get the clear public debate they deserve.

If it can be called technology, it sounds harmless.

If it can be called logistics or warehouse, it may slide into a category never written for this kind of use.

And if it can be called port-compatible or port-related, then residents are left fighting after the applicant has already found the weak spot in the plan.

Again, that is backwards.

Require a real public process

Any proposal for a large-scale data center or high-load computing facility should require a real public process.

Not quiet staff interpretation.

Not administrative approval.

Not “don’t worry, we looked at it.”

A project like this should require:

A Comprehensive Plan amendment.

A zoning text amendment.

Rezoning, if needed.

Public hearings.

Mailed notice.

Utility capacity analysis.

Water supply analysis.

Environmental review.

Infrastructure impact analysis.

Emergency-service review.

Compatibility findings.

And a clear explanation of who pays for any upgrades the project requires.

Because if a project needs more power, more water capacity, road improvements, stormwater changes, emergency-service expansion, or other public infrastructure, residents deserve to know that before approval.

Not after.

The County also needs the right to say no

This is another important piece.

The County should not just create a process that leads to automatic approval.

The County needs clear denial criteria.

It should be able to deny a hyperscale data center or high-load computing facility if it increases public costs for electric, water, wastewater, stormwater, roadways, emergency services, or other infrastructure.

It should be able to deny the project if it requires utility upgrades that are not fully paid for by the applicant.

It should be able to deny it if it creates heat, noise, diesel-generator, water-supply, wetland, flooding, air-quality, coastal-resource, or hurricane-resilience impacts.

It should be able to deny it if it conflicts with port priorities, environmental resources, residential areas, agricultural lands, coastal resources, or the long-term public interest.

Because growth should not mean private companies get the benefit while residents get the burden.

What we need to watch next

This is why residents need to keep an eye on Port Manatee, the Port Manatee Encouragement Zone, the Gateway area, future land-use changes, zoning text amendments, utility planning, and anything described as port-related, port-compatible, industrial, logistics, technology, or infrastructure.

The next big proposal may not say “hyperscale AI data center” in the headline.

It may show up as a warehouse.

Or a technology campus.

Or a utility-intensive industrial project.

Or logistics.

Or port support.

Or economic development.

So we need to watch the language.

We need to watch the maps.

We need to watch the Planning Commission agendas.

We need to watch the Board of County Commissioners agendas.

We need to watch Port Authority meetings.

We need to watch utility-capacity discussions.

We need to watch amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.

Because this is how these things happen.

Not always with a big announcement.

Sometimes with one vague phrase, one map change, one staff interpretation, one agenda item, one “compatible use,” and one meeting most residents did not know they needed to attend.

Close the loophole now

The County needs to do three things.

Define port-related development narrowly.

Define hyperscale data centers and large-load computing facilities clearly.

And make sure they cannot be slipped in under vague labels like light industrial, technology, logistics, warehouse, public utility, port-compatible, or port-related development.

If a project of this size is ever proposed, it should require a full Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning text amendment, public hearings, mailed notice, environmental review, utility capacity analysis, water supply analysis, and compatibility findings.

No shortcuts.

No word games.

No surprise approvals.

Because if it is not clearly prohibited, it may be allowed by omission.

And that is not planning.

That is how residents get blindsided.

Define it now, or fight over the interpretation later.

On a personal note, I have 24 hours left to raise about $700 to make the ballot.

If you have ever read my Substack, enjoyed it, shared it, or learned something from it, please consider donating toward my participation fee.

If we make it, the only Democrat running in this race will be on the ballot in November against one of the eight Republican candidates.

Every $5, $10, or $25 helps right now.

Thank you for helping keep this choice alive.

Why This Matters

Most residents don’t realize that the future of their neighborhood may already be shown on a county map.

Before a developer files an application.

Before a public hearing.

Before construction equipment arrives.

The Future Land Use Map often tells the story years in advance.

Step 1: Find Your Property

coming zoon: how to video in the works

Step 2: Identify Your Land Use Category

• RES-1 = roughly 1 home per acre

• RES-3 = up to 3 homes per acre

• RES-6 = up to 6 homes per acre

• RES-9 = up to 9 homes per acre

• RES-16 = higher density residential

• MU = Mixed Use

• IL = Industrial Light

• IH = Industrial Heavy

• Agriculture/Rural

• Conservation

Step 3: Look Around You

The real story is often not your property.

It’s what surrounds it.

Questions to ask:

• Is agricultural land nearby designated for future residential development?

• Is a mixed-use area planned next to your subdivision?

• Are industrial designations nearby?

• Is a future activity center planned?

• Are wetlands acting as buffers today?

Step 4: Ask the Infrastructure Question

Every growth decision should trigger one question

“Can the supporting systems handle it?”

• Water

• Sewer

• Roads

• Schools

• Stormwater

• Emergency services

The map shows growth.

The Comprehensive Plan is supposed to show how infrastructure keeps up.

Step 5: Learn the Difference Between Zoning and Future Land Use

Many residents confuse the two.

Future Land Use = what the county envisions.

Zoning = what is legally allowed today.

Future Land Use usually comes first.

Zoning often follows.

That was a huge “aha” moment for me.

Now keep an eye out for this:

When you look at the Future Land Use Map, don’t just look for the words “AI data center.”

You probably will not see them.

Look for the broader categories that could become the doorway:

Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Mixed Use
Public/Semi-Public
Port-Compatible Development
Technology
Warehouse / Logistics
Utility Infrastructure

That is the concern.

A hyperscale AI data center may not be labeled as an AI data center on a map. It may be treated as an industrial, technology, logistics, or utility-related use unless the County clearly defines it and says where it is prohibited.

So when residents look at the map around Port Manatee, the real question is not just:

“What color is this parcel?”

The real question is:

“What uses can fit inside that category — and what loopholes are we leaving open?”

That is why the Comprehensive Plan needs to be reevaluated before it is pushed forward.

I’ll start with a confession.

I like technology.

For nearly forty years, I’ve worked in information technology, infrastructure, security, and cybersecurity. I’ve built networks, managed systems, recovered from disasters, written policies, secured environments, and spent more hours in datacenters than I could possibly count.

I also use artificial intelligence almost every day.

So if you’re expecting this article to be an attack on technology or AI, it’s not.

That said, AI does raise some legitimate concerns about privacy, surveillance, intellectual property, and how it may change the workforce. Those are important conversations.

But this article isn’t about AI itself.

This article is about the massive physical infrastructure required to support AI.

The buildings.

The land.

The power.

The water.

The cooling systems.

The zoning.

The things most people never see when they open ChatGPT, ask Alexa a question, or use an AI image generator.

Recently I’ve heard terms like “technology center,” “innovation campus,” and “AI infrastructure” used in discussions around the country and even here in Florida.

Those phrases sound fairly harmless.

The reality can be much more complicated.

What Is a Hyperscale AI Datacenter?

Most people have heard the term datacenter.

Traditionally, datacenters housed the servers that run things like:

• Email

• Websites

• Online banking

• Cloud storage

• Business applications

• Government systems

Those facilities still exist.

A hyperscale AI datacenter is something different.

Think of it less as a giant computer room and more as a factory that produces computation.

These facilities contain thousands—and sometimes tens of thousands—of specialized computer processors working together around the clock.

Those processors are called GPUs, or Graphics Processing Units.

The name comes from their original purpose: rendering graphics and video.

It turns out they are also exceptionally good at performing the massive calculations required by artificial intelligence.

Today, GPUs have become the engines that power AI.

And modern AI requires a lot of them.

Why Does AI Need So Much Infrastructure?

Imagine one person trying to solve a million math problems.

Now imagine ten thousand people solving those problems at the same time.

That is essentially what a hyperscale AI datacenter is doing.

Thousands of GPUs working simultaneously.

The challenge is that those GPUs consume enormous amounts of electricity and generate enormous amounts of heat.

Which brings us to the first major issue.

Power

AI doesn’t run on magic.

It runs on electricity.

Lots of electricity.

Some of the largest AI datacenters being proposed around the world require hundreds of megawatts of power.

For perspective, that can rival the electricity consumption of small cities.

That means:

• New substations

• Transmission upgrades

• Utility infrastructure

• Backup power systems

The question isn’t simply whether a building can be constructed.

The question becomes whether the surrounding infrastructure can support it.

Cooling

When people hear that datacenters require cooling, they often imagine air conditioning for the building.

That’s not really the primary challenge.

The challenge is cooling the GPUs themselves.

The chips generate so much heat that traditional air cooling is becoming less effective.

Many modern AI facilities now use liquid cooling systems.

In some cases, liquid circulates directly through cooling plates attached to the processors, carrying heat away from the chips before they overheat.

In other words, the cooling system exists primarily because of the processors.

No GPUs.

No AI.

No cooling problem.

Water

This is where things get interesting for Florida.

Different cooling systems use different amounts of water.

Some consume very little.

Others can consume significant quantities depending on their design.

As AI facilities become larger, communities naturally begin asking questions.

Where will the water come from?

What happens during drought conditions?

How does this fit into long-term water planning?

Those aren’t anti-technology questions.

They’re planning questions.

Why Are Companies Building These Facilities?

The answer is simple.

Demand.

Every AI chatbot.

Every AI image generator.

Every recommendation engine.

Every large language model.

They all require computing power somewhere.

The race to build AI is creating a race to build the infrastructure behind AI.

The technology is real.

The demand is real.

The question is where that infrastructure should go.

Why Is Zoning Becoming Such a Big Deal?

This may be the most important issue that most people have never heard of.

Many local zoning codes were written long before hyperscale AI datacenters existed.

As a result, these facilities are often proposed under categories such as:

• Technology Center

• Research and Development

• Business Park

• Light Industrial

The problem is that when residents hear “technology center,” they often picture office buildings filled with programmers.

What they may not picture is a facility consuming hundreds of megawatts of electricity and requiring industrial-scale cooling infrastructure.

That’s why communities across the country are beginning to revisit how datacenters are classified and regulated.

The question isn’t whether technology should exist.

The question is whether existing zoning categories accurately describe what is being proposed.

What About Florida?

Florida is unique.

We have rapid population growth.

We have increasing demands on infrastructure.

We have concerns about water supply.

We have heat.

We have hurricanes.

We have environmental resources worth protecting.

Those realities don’t automatically mean hyperscale AI datacenters should never be built here.

But they do mean communities should ask hard questions before approving them.

Why I Keep Coming Back to Port Manatee

Ports are strategic assets.

They support commerce.

Transportation.

Manufacturing.

Logistics.

Economic development.

The question is not whether a datacenter can physically be located near a port.

The question is whether utility-scale AI infrastructure is the highest and best use of limited port-adjacent industrial land.

That’s a land-use question.

It’s a planning question.

And it’s a question worth discussing openly before decisions are made.

My Take

I am not opposed to technology.

I am not opposed to artificial intelligence.

I use AI.

I understand why companies are investing billions of dollars into it.

What concerns me is whether communities fully understand what they are being asked to approve.

A hyperscale AI datacenter is not simply a “technology center.”

It is major infrastructure.

It affects power planning.

Water planning.

Land-use planning.

Economic development planning.

And potentially the future character of a community.

Whether you support them or oppose them, the first step is understanding what they are.

Because good decisions start with good information.

And that’s exactly why I started sharing about this this topic

Yes — this is exactly the kind of “how we fix it” section your article needs.

You can frame it like this:

How We Fix It Before It Becomes a Done Deal

If Manatee County does not want hyperscale AI data centers at or around Port Manatee, then the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code need to say that clearly.

Right now, the danger is not only what the plan says. The danger is what it does not say.

Broad words like technology, light industrial, logistics, warehouse, port-compatible development, economic development, utility infrastructure, or mixed use can become loopholes.

A hyperscale AI data center may not arrive wearing a sign that says, “I am an AI data center.” It may be presented as a technology facility, infrastructure investment, industrial use, or economic development project.

That is why definitions matter.

The County should clearly define large-scale data centers, hyperscale AI data centers, high-load computing facilities, and similar uses in both the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.

Then the County should clearly state where those uses are prohibited, especially in sensitive or high-impact areas such as Port Manatee, the Port Encouragement Zone, coastal areas, conservation-adjacent areas, and places where water, power, traffic, stormwater, flooding, emergency response, or hurricane resilience are already serious concerns.

The County should also make clear that these facilities cannot simply be treated as light industrial, warehouse, logistics, office, technology, or public utility uses by default.

If an applicant wants to build one, they should have to come through a full public process. That should include a Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning if needed, public hearings, mailed notice, and independent review of water use, power demand, wastewater, stormwater, generator emissions, noise, heat, flooding, emergency access, environmental impacts, and taxpayer cost.

Most importantly, the burden should be on the applicant to prove the project will not shift costs or risks onto residents.

This is not anti-technology. This is basic planning.

A Comprehensive Plan is supposed to protect the public interest before the crisis arrives. If the County leaves vague language in place, then residents may only find out what was allowed after the project is already moving forward.

So the fix is simple:

Define it.
Map it.
Limit it.
Prohibit it where it does not belong.
Require public hearings before any loophole becomes a land-use entitlement.

Because if hyperscale AI data centers are not clearly prohibited in the wrong places, then they may be allowed by omission.

Help me get on the ballot for Manatee BoCC District 1.

Only 3 more days to collect the qualifications fee, please chip in

Donate

Reading Manatee County’s Comprehensive Plan Felt Like Looking Into a Time Capsule. What struck me most is that even the updated framework still appears rooted in a growth philosophy developed long before AI infrastructure, climate resiliency, utility-scale power demand, and modern infrastructure interdependency became central concerns. [Comprehensive Plan through the “Envision Manatee”

]

When most people hear the words “Comprehensive Plan,” their eyes glaze over.

Mine didn’t. Maybe that’s the cybersecurity and systems-thinking side of me, but when I started reading through Manatee County’s Future Land Use Element, something immediately stood out:

This document was written for a completely different era of growth.

Not just politically. Structurally.

And honestly? That matters more than most people realize.

Because comprehensive plans are not just boring planning documents. They are the blueprint for how a county evolves:

• where development goes,

• what infrastructure gets prioritized,

• how industrial growth is encouraged,

• and ultimately what kind of future residents inherit.

What surprised me most was not what the document said.

It was what it “didn’t” say.

A Plan Built for Yesterday’s Growth Model

Much of the framework feels rooted in an older Florida growth philosophy:

If roads can be widened, utilities expanded, and impact fees paid, growth can continue.

The document repeatedly references:

• transportation concurrency,

• utility capacity,

• roadway levels of service,

• stormwater systems,

• and infrastructure expansion.

That made sense in the 1980s and early 2000s.

But modern infrastructure stress looks very different now.

Today we are dealing with:

• grid reliability,

• climate resilience,

• cyber vulnerability,

• water system strain,

• wastewater failures,

• extreme rainfall events,

• saltwater intrusion,

• heat,

• insurance instability,

• and aging infrastructure colliding with explosive population growth.

Infrastructure is no longer just roads and pipes.

It is an interconnected ecosystem.

And when one system fails now, the consequences ripple everywhere.

The Port Manatee Area Deserves Far More Public Attention

One thing became very clear while reading the plan:

Port Manatee has long been viewed as a major economic engine and strategic industrial corridor.

The Comprehensive Plan repeatedly references:

• industrial expansion,

• logistics growth,

• infrastructure investment

• foreign trade opportunities,

and coordinated economic development around the port area.

There is even a special overlay district specifically designed to support long-term industrial and mixed-use growth near the port.

That may not have sounded alarming decades ago.

But modern industrial development is no longer just warehouses and shipping yards.

Image by Gemini

Today “industrial growth” can also mean:

• hyperscale AI infrastructure,

• massive distribution campuses,

• utility-scale power demands,

• automated logistics systems,

• large data operations,

• and infrastructure footprints far larger than what most residents imagine.

And that is where I think the public conversation has not caught up yet.

A Server Closet Is Not the Same Thing as a Hyperscale AI Campus

One thing I keep hearing lately is people trying to minimize concerns by comparing modern AI infrastructure to traditional data centers.

That comparison simply does not hold up anymore.

A traditional enterprise data center from 15 years ago is not the same thing as a modern hyperscale AI facility.

Not even close.

Modern AI-oriented infrastructure can require:

• enormous electrical demand,

• dedicated substations,

• massive cooling systems,

• extensive fiber connectivity,

• large land footprints,

• and utility-scale planning.

That is why communities all over the country are suddenly debating:

• power consumption,

• water usage,

• grid resilience,

• tax incentives,

• environmental impact,

• and long-term infrastructure sustainability.

This is not anti-technology.

This is responsible planning.

Because local governments should fully understand what they are approving BEFORE infrastructure decisions become irreversible.

The Comprehensive Plan Leaves a Lot Open to Interpretation

This was one of the biggest things that stood out to me.

The language throughout the plan is broad:

• economic development,

• industrial use,

• mixed employment,

• regional competitiveness,

• infrastructure enhancement.

And broad language can become extremely elastic over time.

That means future commissions and staff interpretations matter enormously.

What may have originally meant:

“light industrial growth”

in the 1990s could potentially be interpreted very differently in the AI era.

That is how communities often wake up one day shocked by projects they never imagined were possible under existing planning language.

The Bigger Question Nobody Wants to Ask

The Comprehensive Plan often approaches growth from one perspective:

How do we accommodate it?

But increasingly, I think Florida communities need to start asking a harder question:

What are the long-term limits?

Not because growth is inherently bad.

But because infrastructure capacity is not infinite.

Water systems have limits.

Drainage systems have limits.

Roads have limits.

Power grids have limits.

Emergency evacuation systems have limits.

And pretending otherwise is not planning.

It is gambling.

This Is About Governance, Not Fear

I want to be very clear:

I am not anti-technology.

I am not anti-growth.

And I am certainly not anti-business.

But I “am” pro-accountability.

And I believe residents deserve transparent conversations about:

• infrastructure impacts,

• resiliency,

• environmental sustainability,

• utility demand,

• and long-term public cost before decisions are made.

Because once infrastructure is built, communities live with those consequences for decades.

The Comprehensive Plan helped me understand something important:

Manatee County’s planning framework was built for a different generation of growth.

The question now is whether local leadership fully understands the scale of what is coming next.

This is only the beginning of what I believe needs to be a much larger public conversation.

Over the coming weeks, I’ll be breaking down sections of Manatee County’s Future Land Use and Comprehensive Planning framework piece by piece on my Substack — translating planning language into plain English and examining what it could mean for infrastructure, growth, resiliency, and the future of our community.

If these issues matter to you, subscribe to stay informed and follow the series as it develops. Also Consider donating to my campaign for Manatee County Board of County Commission District 1

Checks can be made out to Friends of Sari Lindroos-Valimaki and mailed to P.O.Box 71, Terra Ceia, FL 34250

In Chapter 1, we explored how Manatee County intends to direct growth, limit urban sprawl, and shape the future of our community.

This chapter answers a different question:

What can actually be built there?

As I continued reading the Future Land Use Element, I realized something important.

Most residents look at a piece of land and see what exists today.

A ranch is a ranch.

A field is a field.

A wooded area is a wooded area.

But planners, developers, attorneys, and county staff often look at the same property through a completely different lens.

They look at the Future Land Use Map.

And that map tells a story about what that land could eventually become.

The Map Is About the Future

One of the biggest things I learned while reading this section is that the Future Land Use Map is not a map of today’s Manatee County.

It is a map of what county leaders believe Manatee County may become over time.

That’s an important distinction.

When residents see open land, they often assume it will remain that way.

The Future Land Use Map may tell a different story.

Every color on the map represents a category of land use and carries its own set of rules, expectations, and development potential.

Decoding the Language

This section introduces the Future Land Use Classification System.

At first glance, it reads like alphabet soup.

RES-1.

RES-3.

RES-6.

RES-9.

RES-16.

MU-C.

UF-3.

Various overlays and special districts.

My eyes glazed over the first time I read it.

Then I realized these designations are simply shorthand for answering a very important question:

How much development could potentially occur on a piece of land?

In plain English:

RES-1
Up to approximately one home per acre.

RES-3
Up to three homes per acre.

RES-6
Up to six homes per acre.

RES-9
Up to nine homes per acre.

RES-16
Higher-density residential development.

Agriculture/Rural
Primarily farming, ranching, agricultural uses, and large-lot rural living.

Conservation
Areas intended to protect environmental resources and sensitive lands.

Commercial
Businesses, retail, restaurants, offices, and services.

Industrial
Warehouses, manufacturing, distribution facilities, and related activities.

Mixed Use
A combination of residential, commercial, office, and other compatible uses.

These are simplified descriptions, not legal definitions. As always, I encourage everyone to read the actual plan and verify my interpretation.

The Question I Kept Asking

As I worked through these tables, I found myself repeatedly asking:

If every property were developed to its maximum allowable density, what would Manatee County ultimately look like?

The Comprehensive Plan frequently reminds readers that maximum densities shown on the map do not guarantee future approvals.

That’s true.

However, these designations establish the framework that future development decisions are often built upon.

They establish expectations.

They establish possibilities.

They establish what may be considered in future reviews and applications.

Why This Matters

Most residents never look at the Future Land Use Map.

Developers do.

Planning staff do.

Land-use attorneys do.

County Commissioners do.

Because these classifications can have enormous implications for future growth.

The map influences where homes may be built.

Where commercial centers may emerge.

Where industrial uses may locate.

Where conservation areas should remain protected.

And where future population growth is expected to occur.

My Takeaway

This chapter changed how I look at development.

Now when I drive through Manatee County, I find myself wondering not only what a property is today, but what the Comprehensive Plan envisions for it tomorrow.

Every color on the map tells a story.

A story about future homes.

Future businesses.

Future roads.

Future infrastructure needs.

Future water demand.

Future schools.

Future traffic.

And future environmental impacts.

In many ways, this chapter is the blueprint behind the blueprint.

The more I read, the more I realized that understanding these maps may be one of the most important things residents can do if they want to understand where Manatee County is headed.

Want to See Your Area?

One of the most eye-opening things you can do is look up your own neighborhood on the Future Land Use Map.

The Future Land Use designation may not match what the assumption for future is

Explore the maps yourself:

• Future Land Use Map PDF
• Interactive GIS Map Viewer
• Planning Maps Portal

And if you see something I missed, let me know.

We’re learning together.

Map link, so you can immediately look up your own neighborhood.

I included both the PDF map and the interactive GIS viewer.

Future Land Use Map (PDF):
Manatee County Future Land Use Map PDF

Interactive GIS Map Viewer:
Manatee County GIS Interactive Maps

Planning Maps Page (contains Future Land Use, Urban Service Area, overlays, zoning maps, etc.):
Manatee County Planning Maps Page

As always, I’m not a planner, attorney, or land-use expert. I’m simply a curious resident reading the Comprehensive Plan, translating what I learn into plain English, and sharing my observations.

Trust but verify.

Read the maps yourself and see what the County envisions for your area. (My Manatee)

If the Comprehensive Plan is the blueprint for Manatee County’s future, the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) is the master page of that blueprint.

This chapter determines:

• Where homes can be built

• Where businesses can locate

• Where industrial uses can go

• Which lands remain agricultural

• How dense development can become

• Where future growth is expected

In simple terms:

This chapter decides what Manatee County will look like 10, 20, and 30 years from now.

What It Gets Right

The plan recognizes several important goals:

✓ Protect agricultural land

✓ Preserve environmental resources

✓ Direct growth into designated areas

✓ Coordinate development with infrastructure

✓ Maintain community character

✓ Encourage economic development

These are all reasonable goals.

The problem isn’t the goals.

The problem is whether the policies are strong enough to achieve them.

The Biggest Weakness

The Future Land Use Element reads like it wants to manage growth.

But in practice, it often ends up managing the consequences of growth.

There is a big difference.

A truly growth-management-focused plan would ask:

“Where should development occur?”

Instead, many policies end up focused on:

“How do we accommodate development once it is proposed?”

That subtle difference has enormous consequences.

The Future Development Area Boundary (FDAB)

One of the most important concepts in the entire plan is the Future Development Area Boundary.

The FDAB is supposed to create a line between:

• Urban growth areas

• Rural and agricultural areas

Think of it as a fence.

The purpose is simple:

Keep growth where infrastructure exists and protect rural land from becoming endless subdivisions.

This is a good concept.

However, a fence only works if people stop opening the gate.

Historically, amendments, exceptions, and policy changes have weakened the certainty that a growth boundary is supposed to provide.

Density Matters More Than Most People Realize

One of the hidden drivers of future costs is density.

Low-density development may feel less crowded, but it requires:

• More roads

• More pipes

• More utility extensions

• More maintenance

• More emergency service coverage

Every mile of new road eventually becomes a taxpayer responsibility.

Every new water and sewer line eventually requires maintenance.

The plan often allows growth patterns that spread infrastructure over larger areas, increasing long-term costs.

Agriculture Is Treated As Future Development Land

This may be the most important criticism.

Many agricultural lands are protected today.

But many are also viewed as future growth opportunities tomorrow.

That creates constant pressure to convert farmland into subdivisions.

A truly protective agricultural policy would treat farming as a long-term land use rather than a temporary holding pattern before development.

The Infrastructure Disconnect

The county has acknowledged in previous planning documents that there can be a disconnect between:

• Future land use planning

• Utility planning

This is significant.

Ideally:

Infrastructure should guide development.

Too often:

Development drives infrastructure expansion.

When that happens, roads, water systems, wastewater facilities, and stormwater infrastructure spend years trying to catch up.

Flooding Is Not Central Enough

The Future Land Use Element discusses environmental protection.

But after:

• Tropical Storm Debby

• Hurricane Helene

• Hurricane Milton

• Repeated flooding events

it becomes harder to argue that flood resilience should be a secondary consideration.

Flood storage capacity should be treated as critical infrastructure.

Natural systems like wetlands should be viewed as part of the county’s flood-management system, not simply environmental amenities.

The Question Every Resident Should Ask

The most important question is not:

“How many homes are being approved?”

The better question is:

“Where are they being approved, and can the infrastructure support them?”

Because growth itself is not the problem.

Poorly planned growth is.

My Assessment

The Future Land Use Element contains many good intentions.

But it relies heavily on future amendments, discretionary approvals, and case-by-case decision making.

As a result, it functions more as a framework for accommodating growth than a framework for controlling it.

And that may be the single biggest reason Manatee County finds itself struggling with flooding, infrastructure strain, traffic congestion, and continued pressure on rural lands.

Sari’s Plain-English Summary

The Future Land Use Element is supposed to tell growth where to go. Instead, it often ends up figuring out how to deal with growth after it arrives.

That’s the key takeaway from Chapter 1.

And honestly, that single sentence may become the theme for the entire Comprehensive Plan series.

Read the County Draft:

Most people never read a Comprehensive Plan.

Honestly, I understand why.

It is long. Dense. Full of planning language, maps, legal references, overlays, amendments, corridors, future land use categories, statutes, and terminology that can make your eyes glaze over after about five minutes.

But here is the thing:

This document quietly shapes almost everything around us.

Where growth happens.
How roads are planned.
How flooding is addressed.
Where apartments go.
Where warehouses go.
What gets protected.
What gets developed.
How utilities expand.
How transportation evolves.
What kind of future Manatee County is actually building.

And most residents never realize how much influence this document has until something changes near them.

On December 16, 2024, Manatee County released a rewrite draft of the Comprehensive Plan for public review and comments.

That may sound boring.

I do not think it is boring at all.

I think it is one of the most important public documents in our county.

Because this is essentially the blueprint for Manatee County’s future.

What fascinated me most while reading through it was realizing that parts of this system are rooted in planning assumptions that go back decades.

Florida required counties to adopt Comprehensive Plans in the 1980s. Manatee County adopted its original plan in 1989. A major revision happened in the late 1990s. Since then, there have been amendment after amendment after amendment.

And that made me start asking questions.

Are we still planning for the realities of today?
Or are some parts of this framework still operating from assumptions built for a very different Florida?

Because the Manatee County of 1998 is not the Manatee County of 2026.

Not even close.

Today we are talking about:

• explosive growth

• flooding concerns

• water supply stress

• insurance pressures

• traffic congestion

• environmental loss

• AI and hyperscale infrastructure demands

• resiliency

• energy consumption

• climate migration

• aging infrastructure

• cybersecurity risks to utilities and public systems

That is a completely different world than the one planners were dealing with decades ago.

And before someone says:
“Growth is bad.”

That is not actually what I am saying.

Growth is happening whether people like it or not.

The real question is this:

Are the systems underneath that growth being honestly evaluated for long-term sustainability?

As someone who spent decades in cybersecurity and infrastructure systems, I naturally look at things differently.

I look for:

• dependencies

• bottlenecks

• failure points

• outdated assumptions

• cascading impacts

• resiliency gaps

• long-term operational sustainability

That is exactly how I started reading this Comprehensive Plan.

Not politically.

Systemically.

What also became obvious very quickly is that local governments do not have the same authority they once had. Florida has increasingly shifted power through state preemption laws, which changes what counties can realistically regulate or control.

So part of this series is not just about identifying problems.

It is also about understanding:
What can local governments still realistically do?

And what should citizens understand about the limits, pressures, and tradeoffs involved?

That is why I am starting this series:
The Blueprint Decoded.

Not to scream about growth.

Not to create outrage.

But to slow down, translate this into plain language, ask difficult questions, and help residents better understand the systems quietly shaping the future of Manatee County.

Because whether people realize it or not…

This blueprint affects all of us.

I wrote a prequel here: The Future Land Use Plan Reads Like a Time Capsule — And That Should Concern Us

Reading Manatee County’s Comprehensive Plan Felt Like Looking Into a Time Capsule. What struck me most is that even the updated framework still appears rooted in a growth philosophy developed long before AI infrastructure, climate resiliency, utility-scale power demand, and modern infrastructure interdependency became central concerns. [Comprehensive Plan through the “Envision Manatee”

]

When most people hear the words “Comprehensive Plan,” their eyes glaze over.

Mine didn’t. Maybe that’s the cybersecurity and systems-thinking side of me, but when I started reading through Manatee County’s Future Land Use Element, something immediately stood out:

This document was written for a completely different era of growth.

Not just politically. Structurally.

And honestly? That matters more than most people realize.

Because comprehensive plans are not just boring planning documents. They are the blueprint for how a county evolves:

• where development goes,

• what infrastructure gets prioritized,

• how industrial growth is encouraged,

• and ultimately what kind of future residents inherit.

What surprised me most was not what the document said.

It was what it “didn’t” say.

A Plan Built for Yesterday’s Growth Model

Much of the framework feels rooted in an older Florida growth philosophy:

If roads can be widened, utilities expanded, and impact fees paid, growth can continue.

The document repeatedly references:

• transportation concurrency,

• utility capacity,

• roadway levels of service,

• stormwater systems,

• and infrastructure expansion.

That made sense in the 1980s and early 2000s.

But modern infrastructure stress looks very different now.

Today we are dealing with:

• grid reliability,

• climate resilience,

• cyber vulnerability,

• water system strain,

• wastewater failures,

• extreme rainfall events,

• saltwater intrusion,

• heat,

• insurance instability,

• and aging infrastructure colliding with explosive population growth.

Infrastructure is no longer just roads and pipes.

It is an interconnected ecosystem.

And when one system fails now, the consequences ripple everywhere.

The Port Manatee Area Deserves Far More Public Attention

One thing became very clear while reading the plan:

Port Manatee has long been viewed as a major economic engine and strategic industrial corridor.

The Comprehensive Plan repeatedly references:

• industrial expansion,

• logistics growth,

• infrastructure investment

• foreign trade opportunities,

and coordinated economic development around the port area.

There is even a special overlay district specifically designed to support long-term industrial and mixed-use growth near the port.

That may not have sounded alarming decades ago.

But modern industrial development is no longer just warehouses and shipping yards.

Image by Gemini

Today “industrial growth” can also mean:

• hyperscale AI infrastructure,

• massive distribution campuses,

• utility-scale power demands,

• automated logistics systems,

• large data operations,

• and infrastructure footprints far larger than what most residents imagine.

And that is where I think the public conversation has not caught up yet.

A Server Closet Is Not the Same Thing as a Hyperscale AI Campus

One thing I keep hearing lately is people trying to minimize concerns by comparing modern AI infrastructure to traditional data centers.

That comparison simply does not hold up anymore.

A traditional enterprise data center from 15 years ago is not the same thing as a modern hyperscale AI facility.

Not even close.

Modern AI-oriented infrastructure can require:

• enormous electrical demand,

• dedicated substations,

• massive cooling systems,

• extensive fiber connectivity,

• large land footprints,

• and utility-scale planning.

That is why communities all over the country are suddenly debating:

• power consumption,

• water usage,

• grid resilience,

• tax incentives,

• environmental impact,

• and long-term infrastructure sustainability.

This is not anti-technology.

This is responsible planning.

Because local governments should fully understand what they are approving BEFORE infrastructure decisions become irreversible.

The Comprehensive Plan Leaves a Lot Open to Interpretation

This was one of the biggest things that stood out to me.

The language throughout the plan is broad:

• economic development,

• industrial use,

• mixed employment,

• regional competitiveness,

• infrastructure enhancement.

And broad language can become extremely elastic over time.

That means future commissions and staff interpretations matter enormously.

What may have originally meant:

“light industrial growth”

in the 1990s could potentially be interpreted very differently in the AI era.

That is how communities often wake up one day shocked by projects they never imagined were possible under existing planning language.

The Bigger Question Nobody Wants to Ask

The Comprehensive Plan often approaches growth from one perspective:

How do we accommodate it?

But increasingly, I think Florida communities need to start asking a harder question:

What are the long-term limits?

Not because growth is inherently bad.

But because infrastructure capacity is not infinite.

Water systems have limits.

Drainage systems have limits.

Roads have limits.

Power grids have limits.

Emergency evacuation systems have limits.

And pretending otherwise is not planning.

It is gambling.

This Is About Governance, Not Fear

I want to be very clear:

I am not anti-technology.

I am not anti-growth.

And I am certainly not anti-business.

But I “am” pro-accountability.

And I believe residents deserve transparent conversations about:

• infrastructure impacts,

• resiliency,

• environmental sustainability,

• utility demand,

• and long-term public cost before decisions are made.

Because once infrastructure is built, communities live with those consequences for decades.

The Comprehensive Plan helped me understand something important:

Manatee County’s planning framework was built for a different generation of growth.

The question now is whether local leadership fully understands the scale of what is coming next.

This is only the beginning of what I believe needs to be a much larger public conversation.

Over the coming weeks, I’ll be breaking down sections of Manatee County’s Future Land Use and Comprehensive Planning framework piece by piece on my Substack — translating planning language into plain English and examining what it could mean for infrastructure, growth, resiliency, and the future of our community.

If these issues matter to you, subscribe to stay informed and follow the series as it develops. Also Consider donating to my campaign for Manatee County Board of County Commission District 1

Checks can be made out to Friends of Sari Lindroos-Valimaki and mailed to P.O.Box 71, Terra Ceia, FL 34250

What Knocking on 800 Doors Taught Me About Democracy

Over the past 45 days, I knocked on more than 800 doors across District 1 in Manatee County.

Some doors never opened. Some conversations lasted 30 seconds. Others lasted nearly an hour.

I expected conversations about politics.

What I found instead were conversations about people.

I met retirees worried about healthcare and insurance cost getting worse every year.

Young families wondering how schools and roads will keep up with explosive growth.

Longtime residents grieving the loss of the “old Parrish” they once knew.

New residents who moved here chasing the Florida dream, only to discover that growth without infrastructure creates stress for everyone.

And something else surprised me too.

Most people were not angry in the way social media makes us think they are. Exhausted sometimes? Yes. Frustrated? Absolutely. But many people simply wanted someone to listen.

One of the biggest lessons I learned is that democracy is still deeply personal.

It is easy to think democracy only exists in Washington, Tallahassee, or on cable news. But real democracy often happens standing on someone’s driveway in the Florida heat while talking about drainage

No matter where this journey ultimately leads, I am grateful for every conversation, every front porch discussion, and every person who took the time to open their door and share their concerns, hopes, and ideas for our community.

Those conversations reminded me that democracy is not built by politicians alone. It is built neighbor by neighbor, conversation by conversation, and community by community.

Kindly

Sari4manatee.com

Please invest in my campaign, so I may get on the ballot.

Donate Here or scan the QR code below

Subscribe now

Share SISUSari’s Substack