‘False flag’: Policy piracy invades Captiva
To the editor:
Someone forgot to tell Florida’s Bureau of Community Planning and Growth that government documents are supposed to say as little as possible with as many words as possible. Instead, the state agency — tasked with overseeing Lee County’s proposed changes to Captiva’s density and height limits — recently issued a blistering one-page analysis, stating the following:
“The amendment appears to fly a ‘false flag’ of ‘resilience’ as a primary purpose. When, in reality, the amendment is clearly at least in-part for the purpose of an increase in hotel room density. Whether or not an increase in hotel room density is appropriate is for the community to decide. Rather, we are simply urging you to have a transparent discussion with the community about the actual purpose of the amendment.”
Not only has the state told the county how it really feels, it aptly chose “false flag” for its metaphor of deception. The expression derives from sea pirates’ practice of falsely flying the national flag of a ship they hoped to approach and capture. Since Captiva is said to be named after its use as a pirate’s prison for female captives held for ransom, apparently the island’s problems with piracy continue to this day.
Only now it appears to be policy piracy. The false flag that the county raises, as the state bureau points out, is resiliency, whose goodness is pretty hard to object to. Who could ever get behind its opposite, which is what, flimsiness? So if bad policy can pretend to add resiliency, perhaps it can be passed off as progress. That didn’t happen in this case; the ruse was too clumsy and contradictory to survive state scrutiny. The county’s actual purpose lies exposed: to increase hotel room density for one — already dominant — resort, a hidden agenda that clearly flies in the face of disaster resiliency.
The solution? Again, the bureau gets it right: let the community decide, who overwhelmingly oppose increasing Captiva’s density or building heights. Will the county commissioners follow the state’s recommendation “urging you to have a transparent discussion with the community about the actual purpose of the amendment”? We can hope, but that might be a bridge too far. It will be enough for the county to quietly reverse course, retain the existing density and height limits for all Captiva development, and put this sordid scheme to bed.
Don Bacon
Montara, California