More public input needed on CHR project
Editor’s note: The Sanibel City Council’s workshops are open to the public and time is allotted for public input. In addition, the council members are bound by Florida’s Sunshine Law and cannot discuss city business privately with one another.
To the editor:
The Sanibel City Council addressed Community Housing & Resources’ (CHR) proposal for low income housing on Periwinkle Way at its meeting on July 21, 2026. The council previously approved the project, conditioned on the occupants of the development be working on Sanibel. At the July 21 meeting, there was a brief discussion on whether the council should remove the contingency.
I attended the first meeting when the contingency was added, based on the strong opposition to the original proposal from Sanibel residents. Adding the contingency saved the proposal.
I was not able to attend the July 21 meeting, having been out of town, but was able to get a summary of what happened. My understanding is that the council tabled the proposal and announced its intention to have a council workshop to discuss the matter further. As a Sanibel resident, I demand that the meeting be public. At the very least, another public meeting must be called for open discussion by the council and input from Sanibel residents.
My further understanding is that Councilmember Laura DeBruce did some research and cited several cases, which ruled that the existing council resolution with the condition that the residents of the building would be required to work on Sanibel would be upheld by the courts. A crucial question is — would you stand by your constituents and not amend the existing resolution, and if necessary, litigate to defend the present legislation?
You must be willing to do so since an amendment of the existing legislation would violate the Sanibel Plan and its spirit. The reason most residents came to Sanibel was to live in an environmentally-conscious area, without intrusive buildings that contradict that intent.
The current legislation with the amendment at least is closer to the intent of the Sanibel Plan. The purpose of the amendment was to make certain that future residents of the project work on Sanibel. The stated purpose of the project is to build housing for a workforce for businesses on the island. If the current legislation is modified to eliminate this condition, the purpose of the project would be defeated. If you eliminate this contingency, you should simply defeat the entire project.
In summary, you must have a public meeting with community input before you vote on changing the existing legislation. Moreover, at that public meeting, the discussions had in any private meeting must be disclosed. Listen to your constituents and defeat any amendment, just as prior councils defeated proposals such as one by McDonald’s (McSpoil) to build on the island; or in the alternative, disapprove the project in its entirety. The principles are the same.
John DeFrancisco
Sanibel