Paving Over Paradise: A City’s Struggle for Property Rights and Livability – Part I
Article Posted on April 10, 2025
Note: It is our goal at One Martin to provide reliable, fact-based information so citizens can be better informed about our government and community.
Dear Friends,
Now, picture this: you wake up one morning, thinking it's just another day, and bam! The rules about your own land, the place you call home, have been changed. Just like that. Welcome to the City of Stuart.
Newly elected commissioners Sean Reed and Laura Giobbi, along with Vice-Mayor Chris Collins, recently voted to impose a freeze on building, claiming it's to keep out big city developers. But this sweeping decision, made without public input or any proven urgent need, has now halted all development, from essential public buildings to simple commercial tenant improvements, and even basic renovations of homes.
It seems to me there's something amiss. The assertion that this freeze was necessary to curb a surge of development sounds like hogwash. Notably, since October 2023, no applications for multifamily or commercial development have been filed in Stuart. This fact underscores the random nature of the freeze and its disproportionate impact on local property owners.
The economic fallout is already clear: property rights have been severely undermined, casting a long shadow over local businesses, homeowners, and developers.
It's crucial to acknowledge that the previous commission had already implemented measures to manage residential growth, such as restrictions on rezoning commercial properties. And broader economic trends, like rising interest rates and a natural market correction, were already slowing the rental market. So this freeze appears to be a solution in search of a problem, effectively stripping locals of their property rights across all zoning categories and property sizes.
The implications for property values are profound. One has to wonder: Will property taxes be adjusted to reflect these new realities? If tax revenues decline due to this questionable downzoning, what becomes of essential city services? It seems property owners are being asked to bear the burden of reduced property use while maintaining, or even increasing, their tax contributions.
Small parcel owners in the urban core, once viewed as prime for mixed-use or multifamily development, are particularly hard-hit. They now face building capacity reductions of 30-48%. Duplexes, a cornerstone of affordable housing, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are now subject to stringent parking requirements and increased scrutiny. Assisted living facilities, vital for the elderly, have seen their allowed density slashed, limiting access and potentially forcing residents to relocate.
The narrative of protecting Stuart from outside developers rings hollow. Ironically, the freeze benefits large corporations, enabling them to construct high-end housing that further gentrifies the city. Gentrification, simply put, is when wealthier people move into a neighborhood, changing its character and driving up housing costs. This often forces out long-time residents who can no longer afford to live there. It's akin to a small, local diner being replaced by a fancy restaurant with higher prices. Local property owners, who have invested in and shaped Stuart’s character, are the ones being marginalized. The city’s decision to increase parking ratios, against expert advice, exacerbates these issues, driving up housing costs and promoting car dependency.
The commission's push to reduce density, eliminate mixed-use development, and prioritize car dependency threatens Stuart’s future. It undermines walkability, diminishes property values, and compromises the city’s sustainability. This approach ignores the real source of traffic congestion: unchecked development in neighboring areas.
The process has been marred by a lack of transparency. Property owners, the very taxpayers who fund the city, have been silenced. The proposed changes contradict the city’s own comprehensive plan, suggesting a disregard for established planning principles. East Stuart residents, facing even harsher changes, mobilized after Mayor Campbell’s intervention, forcing a postponement.
However, a subsequent “modified commission meeting” held in East Stuart was far from a fair forum. City staff and experts were silenced, while a select group of non-East Stuart supporters muddled the discussion. The community is left to grapple with the implications of this division, wondering if their government is truly serving their interests.
The fate of East Stuart hangs in the balance. Residents continue to fight, striving to understand their rights amidst a sea of misinformation. Their unity serves as a powerful example for all of Stuart. Residents must stand up for their rights. By supporting East Stuart, we may restore property rights, prompting state intervention and reversing the imposed downzoning. This fight underscores the violation of constitutional rights and demands a dialogue to safeguard Stuart’s future.
And if you think this is all puzzling, wait until we share details on what they want to do to East Stuart. Stay tuned for Paving Over Paradise: City of Stuart Part II.
