By Reggie Connell, Managing Editor
First, after decades of inactivity and nearly being defunded, I applaud the Apopka Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Board for its commitment to action over the past couple of years.
However, the plan presented at the February 12th meeting seems ill-advised.
At that meeting, the Apopka CRA Board discussed turning a city-owned property on South 8th Street and Highland Avenue into either six new homes, five new homes, four bigger homes, or four homes and a pocket park.
Here is the discussion by the seven CRA Board members about the property.
"Okay, so at the January 15th (Apopka) City Council meeting, this item was presented as a plat," said acting CRA Director Bobby Howell. "A plat is basically a subdivision of land where you're creating lots, easements, tracts, so people can sell property. So, it was tabled at the city council. There were some concerns with the park that was being proposed to be constructed there... possible criminal activities that could happen in the park. So we were directed to bring this back for discussion and direction from the board as to what your pleasure is with this."
Commissioner Nadia Anderson, who had originated the idea of scrubbing the pocket park for larger lots, was still behind that idea.
"I know that probably I was the one that actually had some concerns," she said. "What I would do is increase the lot size and not consider putting a park in, based on the findings that were discussed in the last meeting."
When I hear the word "findings" used in this context, I expect to see a study, a poll, statistics, or expert opinions referenced. So I went back and listened to that January 15th meeting; however, the only "findings" I could find was Anderson's assertion that a park would give people a place to hang around and would annoy the would-be homeowners occupying those four houses.
During the January 15th meeting, Anderson said that increasing the lot size of the four houses would bring up the property value, which makes sense if that's what your goal is. However, at the CRA meeting, Anderson offered another option that seems to run counter to the "larger lot size" approach.
"So the same four lots, do you just make them deeper?" Mayor Bryan Nelson asked Anderson.
"Deeper or see if we're able to put another property there," Anderson said. "Another home on there... so five homes instead of four."
So I guess larger lot sizes are important unless you could build a fifth home... all instead of a pocket park.
CRA Committee Member John Drago was also in support of houses over parks.
"I took a look at that site plan... and I did drive the neighborhood several times," he said. "And what I noticed was that the streets need some work. The parking was a hodgepodge around the neighborhood. The value, I think, to the City would be to take the properties, that total property, and put it back on a tax roll. Now, because this is City-owned property and my understanding is that whoever the successful builder is gets the property deeded to them where he doesn't have to pay for the property, which is a good idea, then the houses become more affordable. But the builder gets to build the houses that the City wants and that meets the architectural intent of the CRA. So I agree with Member Anderson and I do respect Member Smith's comments, but in that particular area, I think that particular park is superfluous."
Surprised to see that word choice to describe a would-be pocket park where no other park exists within a mile (Alonzo Williams 0.9 miles, Kit Land Nelson Park 1.1 miles), I looked up "superfluous" to make sure I had the correct definition.
SUPERFLUOUS
adjective
- unnecessary, especially through being more than enough.
"The purchaser should avoid asking for superfluous information."
or: "Is the addition of seven board members on the Apopka CRA superfluous since there are only five members on the Apopka City Council?"
Commissioner Nick Nesta had an all-in strategy about affordable housing.
"We're discussing just four homes, possibly five, and really I think we can probably squeeze in six properties if that's our goal here," he said. "So it's a City-owned parcel. We have five or six more within the CRA alone that the City owns that are vacant right now. So is our goal as a Board and as a Council to develop these all into affordable housing? Which, if it is, we need to do this in a master plan almost and similar to the point Member Drago was making that it's important to create efficiencies and expedite the process for these developers so that it can be truly an affordable product."
I am not in support of building four, five, or six lots on this plat. Not as part of a CRA plan. But, if the City were to donate a significant portion of its surplus land to this project, well, that would be a different plan.
Nesta continued with his more comprehensive affordable housing idea.
"So I say that all to say I don't want to do this in a way that we're just throwing that out there and we can check off a box and say, 'look, we did affordable housing, you're welcome,' but if we're really going to do this, let's do it right and let's take all of our parcels that are vacant right now that we have no plans for and actually do affordable housing on them, create floor plans that we all agree to that makes sense that have exactly the living standards that they should be there. We can kind of carve these up a little bit more, and you can fit six lots here in a unique way that would allow plenty of acreage. It would match the surrounding area, but again, if we're going to do this, let's do it in a cohesive way that all of our parcels are either doing it or we're not doing it. And I think just doing this on such a small scale doesn't truly benefit the community. Whereas if we do it on a larger scale, we will start to actually truly impact in a much larger way. That's the whole point of the CRA is to increase property values and increase our tax base."
Increasing property values tax bases doesn't sound like the core reason behind starting a CRA, but what should be the goal of an effective CRA?
I asked ChatGPT, and its response was more diverse and fitting of a CRA.
"The goal of a CRA is to revitalize areas considered blighted, deteriorating, or underdeveloped. CRAs are typically created by local governments to encourage economic growth, improve infrastructure, and enhance the overall quality of life in these target areas."
It also added five ways of accomplishing those goals:
- Economic Development: Attracting new businesses, supporting existing ones, and creating jobs.
- Infrastructure Improvements: Upgrading roads, sidewalks, lighting, and utilities to make the area more accessible and attractive.
- Affordable Housing: Supporting the development or rehabilitation of housing to provide options for low- and moderate-income residents.
- Aesthetic Enhancements: Investing in parks, public spaces, and beautification projects to create a more inviting environment.
- Historic Preservation: Restoring and maintaining significant historical buildings and landmarks.
I disagree with Nesta that increasing property values/tax base is the whole point, but I take his broader meaning. A plan should be in place to utilize these surplus properties and create affordable housing AND parks.
Commissioner Alexander H. Smith was the lone voice on the CRA to support a park.
"I still find value in having the park, and I think we discussed when we were talking about there might be some criminal activity that we talked about fencing in the park to prevent that from happening," he said. "We are always talking about having a park for our youth, and in that community, there is nothing that's walkable. It was mentioned that a park would devalue the neighborhood and I don't see that."
The meeting ended without a consensus, but most of the committee favored abandoning the idea of adding a park.
I agree with Smith, as I assume most people do. I've never seen the approval rating of neighborhood parks, but I assume it's pretty high. But just in case Smith finds himself in a six-against-one debate at the next CRA meeting, here is some ammunition from experts who find parks beneficial to a neighborhood.
Health and Community Benefits of Parks:
The Power of Parks to Promote Health: This report by the Trust for Public Land discusses how parks contribute to cardiovascular health, combat loneliness, and reduce stress and anxiety.
The Health Benefits of Parks and Their Economic Impacts: Published by the Urban Institute, this study explores how parks enhance social cohesion, promote prosocial behavior, and build social capital.
Parks, Recreation, and Green Spaces: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlight how well-designed parks offer spaces for physical activity, reduce stress, and improve mental health.
If they won't listen to outside authorities on the benefits of parks, you could remind them of the millions of dollars the City is investing in upgrades and additions to parks in Apopka.
Recent Developments in Apopka's Parks:
Apopka Action Sports Park Groundbreaking: The City of Apopka announced the groundbreaking of a new skate park and pump track on January 10th, 2025, located just north of the Fran Carlton Center.
Inclusive Playground at Northwest Recreation Complex: Plans are underway for a new all-inclusive playground featuring diverse play structures and accessible pathways, funded by the City and a generous donation from Unlimited Capabilities.
Northwest Recreation Complex and Amphitheater Upgrades: Apopka is set to invest $13.1 million from Orange County's tourist development tax to revamp the Northwest Recreation Complex and Amphitheater.
Proposed Mountain Bike Trail: The Apopka City Council even made room on its February 5th agenda to hear a presentation for a mountain bike trail in Apopka.
That's a lot of money being spent OUTSIDE of the CRA district on parks and recreation only to write it off as superfluous and a place for criminal activity INSIDE the CRA district. And deeding over land to private developers for free seems like a recipe for conflict of interest issues.
As I said at the top of this editorial, I applaud the CRA Board's action on multiple projects, but this plan needs work. Although it is minor in scope, omitting the park misses the true spirit of a CRA. However, it could become more impactful if it takes Nesta's approach and turns it into a larger affordable housing initiative throughout the CRA district.
Take the best of this idea, explore the surplus property inside the CRA district, and formulate a plan - perhaps 50% affordable housing and 50% parks and amenities. It would also be a good idea to gift this land to a non-profit builder like Habitat for Humanity rather than a private developer.
Apopka undoubtedly needs more affordable housing, but it's not the only need in a healthy CRA plan, and 4-6 new homes won't make much impact. I suggest following Nesta's idea for more extensive use of surplus property in the district for affordable housing and more parks and amenities for those neighborhoods.
Editor's Note: This article was produced with the assistance of ChatGPT, an AI language model, to help with research, drafting, and editing. All content has been reviewed and verified for accuracy by The Apopka Voice editorial team.
