At our general meeting on February 1, 2006, Eric Titcomb brought us up to date on the status of Crane Island.

Eric, a longtime resident of Amelia Island, has been actively involved in the Sierra Club's protection efforts since the early '90's.

He brought us up to date on the proposed project beginning with the Timucuan tribe who left middens on the island. After the purchase of the island in 1887 by the Broadbents, Alice Broadbent lived on the island as a recluse until she disappeared when her cabin was burnt down in the early 50's.

Current plans to develop the island began with George Register who wanted to develop 440 units along with some commercial property. This morphed into the Civitas development plan for 169 dwelling units and a 90 slip marina. This month's plan looks much the same with the developer mutating to a local investor: The Amelia Island Plantation.

There have been many changes since 1990: the owners have changed, the developers have changed, the projects have changed, and the county and city commissioners have changed. The only constants have been the Sierra Club's efforts to protect this wetland, and the wetland itself.

The area in question consists of the island, a maritime forest with about 75 upland acres, surrounded by wetland acres. The north end of the island which is a 30 acre spoil site, is used by the Florida Inland Navigation District when dredging.

The upland forest is mixed woods, at an average height of seven feet with no part of the woods more than eleven feet above the waterway. The woods and surrounding marsh protect clean water by absorbing pollutants and sediment. They provide habitat for wildlife and nurseries for fish and shellfish.

The State of Florida's future land use map designates this area as "conservation land use". This designation allows one residential unit per five acres.

This month's developer wants this county commission to give residential zoning to the area. Failing that, the developer wants to transfer "density" from other properties that they own on the island.

The concept of transferring "density" converts development into some sort of density unit. If a developer has not used an allotted density on one part of Amelia Island, they believe that density can be transferred to another part. If we built three holes of a golf course instead of condos over here, then we should be allowed to build the condos somewhere else that we choose.

The current residents of the wetlands have not registered any comment on this density swap concept. Presumably, the birds and shrimp will migrate to the area of swapped density units.

This month's developer has this month's plan before this month's county council. They will decide whether to follow their own previous zoning plan or to change the plan again this month. This month's birds are beginning to nest.

Bob McGinness

Bunkum: this is the only word which can describe Mr. Healan’s letter last week on Crane Island. To suggest that the Amelia Island Company is a benevolent organization dedicated to finding worthy environmental projects is not credible, not feasible, and resembles a politician’s election promise. When a developer tells you he is looking out for public interests, be very, very afraid.

The "environmentally sensitive" project will involve removing not only trees, but digging out the center of the island itself to create an "upscale" marina. The area currently designated contains Native American middens, as located by the Florida Archaeology survey. The only land set aside for conservation would be wetlands and setbacks which cannot be built upon anyway.

Because the proposed development is on a part of the island designated conservation / wetland by the future land use map (FLUM), not zoning, the Civitas Corporation has a right to build one unit per 5 acres. To increase density in a coastal high hazard area serves no environmental or public interest at all. This would certainly be contrary to the lofty ideals of Mr. Healan.

The close relationship between Civitas, represented by Mr. Buddy Jacobs, and the Amelia Island Corporation, also represented by Mr. Jacobs, belies a spontaneous gesture by the AIP to further environmental interests. A "slash and burn, pave and plant" style company, to quote Mr. Healan, is environmentally repugnant, but you certainly know where they stand. The openly exploitive developer could be the mugger, but the pseudo-environmental developer is a cat burglar, using stealth to accomplish the environmental theft.

Please Mr. Graham, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Healan, get a new storyline. Your investors want a return, we know that. You don’t want more density for public good or environmental betterment. More density means more money.

We appreciate your past acts, donating Nana, setting aside land on the plantation, fighting superWalmart off the island, and work with the Nature Conservancy. We will not dwell on any past negative acts, preferring to dwell on the positive. Nonetheless, past credits do not forgive obvious problems with the Crane Island project.

Will there be hiking trails open to the public under AIC’s patronage? Will Alice Broadbent’s homesite still be paved over? Is the AIC going to remove the guts of the island and dig up middens? How much buildable, currently conservation, upland will be set aside for conservation under AIC? Please do not include the 35 acres of Florida Inland Navigation property when you are calculating good deeds. How much wetlands will be disturbed with roads and bridges to the island ? Will affordable housing be included? Do you believe the wetlands surrounding the island would still support the birds and other wildlife now located there? What would be the relationship between Royal Amelia Golf Course and Crane Island? What about concurrency issues, and evacuation issues? We will only mention the issues with the adjoining airport, the airport supporters can continue to address those problems.

The idea of "giving" density to the Crane Island development is an idea previously rejected by the County Commission. To create a special case for this proposed development flies in the face not only of the environment, but of basic democratic government. We urge you to abandon this plan and focus your energy and resources elsewhere.

Sincerely,