Writer’s Notes: I live close to South Venice Beach and its related properties. And, I have a good deal of personal knowledge about the community and its history. These stories, however, are not the product of my opinions nor are they based on my objectives. I am writing for my community, first, for you, whether or not you live here, and for the sole purpose of giving information. What is made of what is read here will vary.  That is a reasonable diversity of reactions. If these stories inform, educate, or add something new to the reader's understanding, then my work has succeeded. - KyleeliseTHT

*Historical documents, photographs, interviews and information, and records provided and used courtesy of Westcoast Inland Navigation District, Venice Museum & Archives, Sarasota County Government, Sarasota County Sheriff's Office, South Venice Beach Endowment Trust, and area citizens. The writer thanks all for access to these materials, information, and time. The writer also thanks participating community members for their time and candid interviews.

THE PROMISE OF A FOREVER BEACH

Photographs and video \u00a9 KyleeliseTHT and T-Nathaniel Thomas unless otherwise noted

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The beach was majestic on the first day of March. There was not much wind. The sand, slightly compacted, was neither gritty nor sticky, and the waves were gentle.

When the time came to watch the sunset, strangers huddled at the shoreline to marvel at the brilliant, inverted pear-shaped spectacle of what appeared to be an illuminated globe sinking into the Gulf of Mexico.

So much freedom within the gaze of the unobstructed vista. A welcome distraction from the oppressive days of Covid-19, which haunted all of 2020, and drags on, now, in 2021.

But to one’s back, the sand is chipped away. How deep into the dune the earth has been carved is a sign that one is standing lower than one should.

Just how much beach has eroded? According to a report by Environmental Science Associates (ESA), a consulting firm that evaluated this shoreline in 2019, the beach has retracted 120 to 175 feet.

In June 2020, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP) designated the short stretch of coastline “critically eroded.”

That’s not surprising. The visual evidence tracks what’s left of South Venice Beach.

Unearthed are whole skeletons of petrified trees. Survivors cling to a cliff above. If left unattended, they will vanish from the living landscape. And in relative proportion, shorebirds and other coastal dwellers will disappear, too.

The sun receded into the arc of the horizon. Beachgoers that had ferried over ascended the stairs and crossed back over the dune. They made their way to a small electric boat and were shuttled along a short trek to the boathouse across the Intracoastal, piloted by an affable captain, who’d made the journey to and fro several times that day.

There was a lot of lingering on the inland side once docked. You’d be surprised how long folks take to say “goodbye” to people they hadn’t known before the journey to and from the 1400-foot stretch of Manasota Key – a gifted jewel to a subdivision tucked in a southern, unincorporated outlier of Sarasota County, Florida.

South Venice, not to be confused with the City of Venice just north, is a little more than six-and-a-half square miles and was platted initially for cottage dwellings and mobile homes in the 1950s and ‘60s but developed into a middle-class vacation and retiree enclave that also attracts younger families but in far fewer numbers and a steadily growing professional class.

Now, an abode under $300,000 is a steal. Some homes in the neighborhood have crested one million in value.

Like everywhere with natural amenities or urban proximity, things are changing in South Venice, Florida.

The following days – March 2nd and 3rd – a work crew put up a fence that shuttered the way to the beach transport.

This neighborhood park hosts a motorboat ramp and places where one can launch a kayak or fish in the quiet of the Intracoastal, right there at mile marker 50, backed by the dune that hides the prize--South Venice Beach.

.

That second day of March, this writer made a post on the neighborhood Nextdoor page:

“Fencing South Venice Beach boat launch & ferry parking. Any information about the fencing going up at the South Venice ferry and boat launch access? Looks as if the entire area is being closed off with a tall chain-link fence.”

At the time of this writing, there are one-hundred-and-sixty-eight passionate weigh-ins. And there is no middle ground, just opposition or support for the shuttering of the neighborhood waterfront park that fronts its beach and has been unrestricted for decades.

The South Venice Beach Endowment Trust (SVBET) manages the boat ramp, ferry, and beach properties. The five-member body – there is one vacancy – agreed to the barrier as a safety precaution.

SVBET Trustee John Bridinger, both a resident and rental property owner, who supported installing a fence in February but with some reservations, believed the Trustees would decide the type of structure to be put up at a general meeting on March 17.

“Well, I was kind of against (the fence). I didn’t think it was really necessary. But, you know, I get it. There was a drug house across the road,” he said.

“A couple of Trust members said they found (drug) needles all the time in the field, but we never saw any pictures or anything or any proof of whatever. But, apparently, it was pretty bad. But no pictures; no proof,” Mr. Bridinger added.

A drug house across the street. Needles. The spoken urgency was brewing for months.

 “Unfortunately, there were several incidents of vandalism and worse,” wrote SVBET Trustee Cheryl L. Cooper on one of the Nextdoor posts this writer created, adding, “The fence was erected for security and preservation of the property, and the safety of those legally using the facilities.”

Data compiled by the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office shows the following law enforcement engagement at 4800 Lemon Bay Drive, the site of the South Venice Ferry and Boat Ramp property, from May 5, 2020, through May 1, 2021

Criminal mischief:

5/20/2020

2/1/2021

2/26/2021

3/22/2021

Disturbance

4/10/2021

Simple assault

2/26/2021

Eight “suspicious” activities, including incidents, vehicles, and persons

There were a total of 140 incidents of law enforcement engagement on Lemon Bay Drive during this period, including animal control calls and desk calls like the one from this writer’s home to report an overturned mailbox (with road marks).

Ms. Cooper, an attorney licensed to practice in New Jersey and owns property in South Venice, declined two requests for interviews. Nonetheless, she responds to now three posts this writer contributed to Nextdoor.

According to Mr. Bridinger, two Trustees – he doesn’t name them – went door-to-door “… and got all the people, who were ranting and raving about the drug house to come into the (Trust) meeting and say that the fence would help.”

Mr. Bridinger refers to the February 17 meeting of the SVBET, which was held two days after more unsettling news.

Allegedly, the sexual abuse of an adult person we will not name in this story happened at the boat ramp and ferry mainland property.

An assault at the property made attending to the security an urgent matter. The Trust convened at an executive meeting to sort out how to make the area safe, according to Mr. Bridinger.

Ms. Cooper added a timeline to one of the Nextdoor posts.

“.. Let’s get the FACTS straight, she wrote. “The fence was approved 3-1. The check for the project was signed by a different trustee .. not me or chuck. Again .. documents don’t lie .. people do.”

Mr. Bridinger disputes the nuances of Ms. Cooper’s account. He said that (Charles) Chuck Bauman, one of the four SVBET Trustees, used one of several checks that Mr. Bridinger left in the care of the SVBET administrator, Ms. Karen Lewis, for ongoing expenses that do not require a vote. He said no one informed until weeks later that Mr. Bauman used a check he signed to pay the fencing company.

Here’s what Mr. Bridinger had to say about the matter fourteen days before Ms. Cooper posted her version of what happened.

“Since I live a few doors down from the Civic Association, I sign, I don’t know, maybe ten checks, twelve checks for Karen (Lewis) just so she has them for miscellaneous whenever she needs them. And, this Trustee member took it upon himself to go in the next day, grab one of the checks that I signed, and paid full in cash to the first person that would build the fence, I think.”

Ms. Lewis is a part-time administrative employee of SVBET.

Mr. Bridinger said he “had no idea” that Mr. Bauman used a check with his signature to purchase the fence. He “thought” that Mr. Bauman paid for it “out of his pocket” and would ask the Trust for reimbursement, he added.

When does Mr. Bridinger say he learned that Mr. Bauman presumably used a check with his signature to pay for the fence? “I’d say about three weeks after the fence was up,” he said. However, he acknowledged that he voted in favor of it at the February 17 meeting.

The fence company confirmed that Mr. Bauman ordered and paid for the fence well before March 17.

The “possible molestation,” Mr. Bridinger said, is what led to his voting in favor of fencing the community property.

It is reasonable to say that there is a good deal of displeasure in South Venice over the fence, both the aesthetics of the tall chain link and its adornment with signs along the wall, which is as wide as the waterfront expanse that once was.

“Posted.” “Private Property.” “Warning” posters in multiples.

The enactment of an opening and closing schedule with uneven privileges among boat ramp key holders and those who’d frequented the park’, like the kayak launch, fishing spots, and the paid ferry riders, stirred up more opposition.

But for some neighbors nearby, who’d felt threatened by what seemed like an escalating crime problem, a fence is a welcomed deterrent. Unfortunately, while many people freely objected and some were relieved, few were comfortable going on record.

On this, too, Ms. Cooper weighed in.

“The community has no say in the decisions of the SVBET.. however... there were multiple meetings where the people who live across from the ferry and park actually ASKED multiple times for the fence to be erected. ..”

Some knew that the fence was coming. But not everyone knew what kind. As was Mr. Bridinger, some were surprised that the Trustees would set in place a six-foot-high, chain-link fence well before the next general meeting.

Mr. Bauman distributed a seven-point document titled “Rumors and Falsehoods” at the start of the March 17 meeting.

The first item undermines Mr. Bridinger’s understanding about revisiting the fence issue:

“UNTRUTH

1. There would be input about the fence choices and a few days later (Charles) Chuck Bauman signed a contract for $2000 over the bid price without board approval”

TRUTH

1. “Truth” as stated on the document claims that the fence purchase was made after a 3-1 “majority vote which took place at the February meeting witnessed by all who attended that evening, and it was recorded.”

SVBET Trustee (Charles) Chuck Bauman did not respond to two requests to interview for this story.

The South Venice resident is an attorney licensed in the State of Michigan. He also heads Bauman and Bauman, a 501c (3) charitable organization for “animal protection and welfare.”

At that March Trust meeting, Mr. Bauman ticked off a list of problems, including escalating crime, aggravated assault, molestation, criminal mischief, then defended the fence installation, saying it was necessary “because there’s a lot of illicit behavior (at the ferry site).”

Seven days earlier, a fight at the boat ramp, resulting in broken bones, according to Mr. Bauman, was yet another reason to close the property.

Adding another layer to the problems at the site, Mr. Bauman said that chain-link fence materials had risen at a hurried rate, four times in price.

The escalating cost is why Mr. Bauman admittedly took it upon himself and hired a next-town-over fencing company to expedite the job before the Trustees met again to work out the particulars, he said at March’s Trust meeting.

The office manager at Englewood Fencing confirmed Mr. Bauman’s claim. “Yes, since last year, fencing materials at our cost have gone through the roof like forty- to fifty- percent markup, “she said. “I’m not sure what that means on the customer’s end.”

Additionally, she explained that the turn-around time to lock down the price of materials has shrunk to three to five days. “That’s unheard of,” she added.

And there was one more thing, Mr. Bauman has cautioned.

“Keep in mind that the reason for the fence – the primary reason – is to prevent things from happening and to reduce our liability,” Mr. Bauman said in response to rousing inquiries during the March 17th meeting. “Remember, we’ve got that responsibility to try and mitigate our liability. And, so, if we keep perpetrators, for a lack of a better word, out, they can’t commit crimes….”

During the same meeting, in justifying the fence, Mr. Bauman referenced the alleged molestation and identified the alleged victim by name.

We will not repeat the name of the person(s) that reported the alleged crime to the Sheriff’s department. However, what was determined by law enforcement officials will be.

The alleged assailant, possibly plural, won’t be mentioned since their description and person changed wildly to the extent that the first could not possibly be the other.

On February 18, 2021, Mr. Bauman spoke with Officer Vincent Ovchar of the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Department. We acquired the information reported here through a request for public records.

According to the report, Mr. Bauman told Officer Ovchar that, as a Trustee of the South Venice Beach Endowment Trust, he had reviewed and could provide surveillance video of the area where the alleged molestation was said to have taken place.

The video provided by Mr. Bauman documents the timeline of an interaction between the alleged victim and two other people.

Most of the interaction between the three took place inside a car parked on the ferry property. According to the report, the video shows the alleged victim entering then exiting the vehicle five minutes later.

Based on the evidence and interviews with all the parties involved, after a nearly month-long investigation, Officer Ovchar determined that he “… was not able to develop probable cause through this investigation and an arrest would not be made.”

Officer Ovchar concludes his report on the investigation with, “Based on this investigation thus far, I will not be able to determine probable cause exists to show a crime has occurred. (The alleged victim’s) statements have been inconsistent and there is no physical evidence or witnesses to the event. The case has been updated to a suspicious incident and I have advised records Marsy’s Law no longer applies. As such, I request this case be exceptionally cleared." (March 4, 2021)

Mr. Bauman also referenced a “brutal attack” at the meeting. The one police record for the date in question lists a [“Disturbance”* the writer made an error since the above reference happened in April - a "Simple assault" is reported February 2021] at the ferry property.

The total cost of the fence at the time of payment on February 20, 2021, was $11,436.

With the fence installed and shuttered from a half-hour after sunset until 8 am, only the boat ramp key holders will have unrestricted use of the ferry park and its amenities.

The more expensive ferry pass subscription holders are now afforded fewer hours in the day. The same is true for Kayakers, those who fish bayside or in the Intracoastal, or walk the trail and enjoy the waterfront.

There was some mention of looking for ways to make access more even among the paid users of the property at the March meeting. But nothing was settled. The discussion did not address community members that use the park but haven’t subscribed to the ferry or boat ramp services.

Even though three Trustees voted for the fence back in February, Mr. Bridinger and fellow Trustee Sandy McHenry expected the details of what kind, what design, and how high and close to the road would be hammered out the March 17, 2021 meeting.

As mentioned earlier, SVBET had already installed the fence before then.

Back in January 2020, Ms. McHenry asked for a community survey to gauge the temperature for fencing off its park and what remedy to squelch the rampant crime at the South Venice Ferry would yield the most support.

“…the fence did not magically appear,” Ms. Cooper wrote. “This has been discussed repeatedly in 2020 on agendas ... and finally approved in 2021. If this was actually journalism all that would have been brought to light.”

Ms. Cooper is correct that the fence did not “magically appear.”.

Talk of closing the property had evolved into a plan looking for a reason well before the Trust had one.

In September 2020, the following item appeared on the agenda as “old news”:

” b. Estimate for gates at ferry property/boat ramp.”

In December 2020, again, the fence business appeared as “old news.”

“e. Fence/Gate Security – (Cheryl L.) Cooper.”

Mr. Bridinger is not happy with the fence. But the question of whether the barricade remains is settled, he said. But, maybe, the approach could have been different, he added.

“There’s a lot of Brazilian Pepper,” he said. “Cut out all the Brazilian Pepper if we’re going to put up a fence. Do it right. I would definitely go with a four-foot over six-foot. I’d have a nice gate in the front that looks appealing instead of a prison,” he added. “That was my main thing. If we were going to do it, get it right the first time.”

The six-foot chain-link fence that stands, now, had to be setback twenty feet off the property line, according to a County employee.

A chain-link fence is a particular zoning case, said Donna Ladue from the Sarasota County Zoning department. “We don’t allow chain-link fences in front yards. They have to be set back twenty feet,” Ms. Ladue explained.

“Any size chain-link fence has to be twenty feet back from the property line,” she clarified.

The setback rules for vinyl, wood, and other fencing stock are significantly more favorable for property owners.

Mr. Bridinger said that the Trust rejected the shorter fence because people could climb over.

If not being able to climb it was the central argument, the fence is doing its job. However, at the far right from the boat ramp, where it nears a tall congested stand of Brazilian Peppers on the property, there is an opening wide enough to pass through without any effort of twisting, turning, or climbing.

Ms. Cooper wrote that the company that set it will remedy the problem at its cost.

As for any public input on the fence, Ms. Cooper posted her inclination Wednesday on Nextdoor.

“... The subject is closed and it will not be revisited. The trustees have a duty and obligation to protect the property which was being repeatedly damaged and the people who use it. There were multiple assaults and vandalism. If the community cared so much they would have viewed the agendas which contained this topic for almost all of last year and this year.”

Writer’s Notes: I live close to South Venice Beach and its related properties. And, I have a good deal of personal knowledge about the community and its history. These stories, however, are not the product of my opinions nor are they based on my objectives. I am writing for my community, first, for you, whether or not you live here, and for the sole purpose of giving information. What is made of what is read here will vary.  That is a reasonable diversity of reactions. If these stories inform, educate, or add something new to the reader's understanding, then my work has succeeded. - KyleeliseTHT

*Historical documents, photographs, interviews and information, and records provided and used courtesy of Westcoast Inland Navigation District, Venice Museum & Archives, Sarasota County Government, Sarasota County Sheriff's Office, South Venice Beach Endowment Trust, and area citizens. The writer thanks all for access to these materials, information, and time. The writer also thanks participating community members for their time and candid interviews.

THE PROMISE OF A FOREVER BEACH

Photographs and video \u00a9 KyleeliseTHT and T-Nathaniel Thomas

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Warren Smadbeck and his brother, Arthur Smadbeck, two years his junior, planned a waterfront “family” weekend getaway community called Fire Island Pines in Suffolk County, New York. The brothers, who owned The Home Guardian Company of New York, purchased the property in 1924 but didn’t develop the land on the southern coastline of the Long Island Sound until the ‘50s.

Dr. Warren Smadbeck was a trained dentist who earned his degree at the age of 19. After his father, Jacob Louis Smadbeck, died in 1911, the elder son stepped in to run the family real estate business, primarily selling land in Westchester and Suffolk counties. Arthur left high school to work alongside. Upon his death in 1977, he is described in his New York Times obituary as “a pioneer in the development of rural and suburban real estate and president of the New York Coliseum.“

The Putnam County Courier obituary announcing Dr. Smadbeck’s death coined him as a “ pioneer in suburban real estate development and who developed Lake Carmel, Putnam Lake, and Roaring Brook, all in Putnam county.”

The Smadbeck brothers developed thirty subdivisions across the country, which earned them the distinction of being dubbed “the Henry Fords of the industry” of suburban development.

South Venice, Florida, is one such housing tract created by the brothers.

A decade before the Smadbecks began work on Fire Island, on June 9, 1941, they formed W&A Construction Corporation, which developed South Venice.

On December 22, 1952, Anna Weber, listed as president of W&A Construction Company, and Evelyn Bleyer, the secretary, registered a plat with two hundred sixty-eight 40- times 100-foot lots, some slightly larger, in South Venice. The company platted seventy-four more areas into a total of 19,587 slices from three thousand acres of land and sold them for about $600 apiece. It would take two lots on which to build a modest home.

W&A Construction Corporation registered its final addition, Unit 75, on May 7, 1954.

In a unique measure for early suburban planning, the Smadbecks’ added a park to every neighborhood of its South Venice subdivision - 37 parks in total. Challenger, Nightingale, and the Lake with open green space behind the former Bill Bucks Chevrolet dealership on U.S. 41 are examples of the developers’ recreational areas built into the planning and donated to the community.

Known for building around lakes and open communal spaces, all of the Smadbeck developments include donations of land for these purposes.

Referring to the seventy-five subdivided units of South Venice, a 2003 Sarasota County staff report states, “These plats established the 37 park areas (Parks) that are currently located throughout the Subdivision and dedicated these Parks for public use.”

The memorandum also outlines why South Venice Civic Association would deed all but one of these parks to Sarasota County.

HOW SOUTH VENICE CIVIC ASSOCIATION BECAME THE DE FACTO GOVERNING BODY OF SOUTH VENICE

When lot sales and development boomed in 1950s South Venice, the area lacked the local representation to manage its shared amenities. 

At the same time, residents yearned for continuity and organized social engagement.

On November 12, 1955, a group assembled at the beachfront Sunset Motel for a “Meeting of S. V. residents interested in forming a civic association…”. They became the South Venice Civic Association (SVCA) on December 23, 1955, and elected its first permanent leadership on January 17, 1956.

Soon after that, the newly-formed social group would fill the other void in South Venice - representation.

What came next is a defining moment in history. The members of SVCA became the representative body of South Venice.

Between 1954 and 1957, the Smadbecks donated the common areas to the residents of South Venice as part of an extensive portfolio of land gifts, then, eventually, granted the deeds to SVCA.

On May 2, 1954 - one year and six months before SVCA existed and three years before W&A Construction Corporation transferred to it all the communal deeds - the Smadbecks dedicated the beach frontage and footbridges to the residents of South Venice. The Mayor of the City of Venice, Sarasota County and government officials, and eighty-five residents attended.

“The beaches are reserved for South Venice residents, but others are permitted to use them at present,” reported the Venice Gondolier newspaper about the dedication event.

“Reserved for South Venice residents” or “private.”  Some variation denoting the community’s interest in the common areas within the subdivision was commonplace.

Over the years, the SCVA has exercised considerable, sometimes unilateral, authority over the beach and other recreational properties gifted to the residents during the early days of South Venice.

In 2001, SVCA created the South Venice Beach Endowment Trust (SVBET) to manage the beach, its inland waterway, and the property gateway, which houses the ferry boat, motorboat ramp, kayak launch, parking lot, fishing, and pedestrian areas, and a small lot next to the SVCA community center.

ABOUT THOSE THIRTY-SEVEN PARKS

In the memorandum that states the intended use and to whose benefit the Smadbecks donated the common areas of South Venice, the report outlines why SVCA later gave thirty-six of the community’s 37 parks to Sarasota County.

“In February 2001, staff was approached by the SVCA for information regarding the responsibility of the County for maintenance of the Parks,” the report states. Adding, “...the maintenance issue, as well as that of ownership, had been a source of controversy for at least 20 years, and that the situation had yet to be clearly resolved.”

The deeded parcels transferred to SVCA were the green spaces the developers had also set aside for the residents of South Venice.

In August, the “newly-formed” South Venice Resident Coalition (SVRC) weighed in on the parks maintenance issue and supported the transfer of thirty-six of the 37 to the County.

In Resolution 2003-057, Sarasota County assumed ownership of the 36 recreational and conservation spaces, including Challenger and Nightingale Parks, and a lake and open space. The County officially registered the deal on March 12, 2003.

SVCA and SVBET retained ownership of the remaining land-locked green space, the beachfront, the community center property, and the 4800 Lemon Bay Drive gateway to the beach.

“MEMBERS ONLY”

When SVBET installed the fence at 4800 Lemon Bay Drive, a “Members Only” notice was posted, along with ”No Trespassing” and “Private Property” signage.

At a May 19, 2021 SVBET general meeting, this writer asked the trustees to define “members.”

SVBET Trustee Cheryl Cooper answered. “The South Venice Beach community.”

She also answered the follow-up question: “Are there members who have unrestricted access to the park when you begin to lock it?” Earlier, Trustee (Charles) Chuck Bauman said, "We haven’t, as the trust, started locking the gate, but the boaters have. And, the captains have not."

“The people who have a key," Ms. Cooper said. Then she clarified with, “...only the boat ramp key holders.” Adding, “And, that is only to accommodate the people who fish - some of them for a living, and some of them at night."

“But that’s for a specified purpose. It’s not unrestricted access,” Mr. Bauman said.  

So what about Kayakers who go out to watch the sunrise?

“They don’t pay,” Ms. Cooper said.  “So, they don’t have a key."

“They don’t pay to use the boat ramp. They don’t pay to use anything there. They just use the park when it’s open,” she added.

When a resident kayaker said, “This seems like it’s been segregated as a separate issue - the kayakers.” 

Ms. Cooper answered, partly, this way.

“The kayakers do not pay. And, neither does anyone that wants to just go walk around over there. So, the only people that have access - some people take their dogs to run around, play ball or whatever in the grass, which is all fine, well and good -  but none of those people pay to use any part of the (ferry property). So, if a kayaker buys a ramp key, then they would have access to the gate,” Ms. Cooper said.

Kayakers can launch their kayaks into the Intracoastal from a designated area when the park is open.

PUBLICLY FUNDED

Trustee (Sandra) Sandy McHenry mentioned an email from the West Coast Inland Navigation District (WCIND) that needed follow-up from the board. The trust members gave no further details at the meeting. 

Ms. Cooper deferred the matter to be taken up at an executive session after the general meeting concluded.

WCIND is a waterways management agency that has provided funding to the South Venice ferry and beach properties and its inland waterway. Sarasota County administered the grants.

Justin McBride, executive director of WCIND, said WCIND funding is set aside for open public improvements.

Insofar as to whether WCIND money can fund private property improvements, Mr. McBride said, “It depends on the project - the underlined ownership isn’t as important as the access.”

The access to the improvement must be public to qualify for WCIND funding, not the ownership.

Ms. Cooper’s claim that all the residents of South Venice Beach are members of the ferry property doesn’t fully encompass the “public” that SVBET has indicated would benefit from some of the funding that supports its facilities.

South Venice Beach Endowment Trust received the following WCIND Federal funds through Sarasota County:

2010-2012 $21,725 - Ramp dock renovation

2012-2014 $10,000 - Ferry House Slip

2016-2017 $185,250 - Channel Dredging

  $216,975

In 2013, SVBET received $7,500 “in support of the acquisition of a ferry that will be available for use to the general public for a fee;.”

SVBET is a 501c(3) code is S99, Community Improvement, Capacity Building

WHAT’S NEXT FOR THE SOUTH VENICE FERRY PARK?

The park is now open from 8 am until a half-hour after sunset or whenever a motorboater unlocks or locks the gate.

Nearly fifty-three percent of the parks in Sarasota County close at sunset.

If Mr. Bauman has his way, the South Venice ferry property - with its 6-foot, gated fence, as wide as the open green space - will soon be the most fortified park in the area.

He said at the May 19 meeting that he'd already spoken with one vendor about more heightened security.

Floodlights, license plate readers, and face-recognition cameras, with a range from inland to the beach. The lock across the boat ramp. The caged ferry house and proposed shuttering from the waterway side when it’s not in use,  The unevenness of who gets to use the space and when.

The South Venice ferry property might well end up having that “prison” look and feel about which John Bridinger worried. He’d suggested a more attractive closing off of the property after hours.

Mr. Bridinger, 39, was the youngest Trustee. He resigned at the end of the May 19 meeting.

“I hate to lose, but I gave it my all,” Mr. Bridinger said.

Writer’s Notes: I live close to South Venice Beach and its related properties. And, I have a good deal of personal knowledge about the community and its history. These stories, however, are not the product of my opinions nor are they based on my objectives. I am writing for my community, first, for you, whether or not you live here, and for the sole purpose of giving information. What is made of what is read here will vary.  That is a reasonable diversity of reactions. If these stories inform, educate, or add something new to the reader's understanding, then my work has succeeded. - KyleeliseTHT

*Historical documents, photographs, interviews and information, and records provided and used courtesy of Westcoast Inland Navigation District, Venice Museum & Archives, Sarasota County Government, Sarasota County Sheriff's Office, South Venice Beach Endowment Trust, and area citizens. The writer thanks all for access to these materials, information, and time. The writer also thanks participating community members for their time and candid interviews.

THE PROMISE OF A FOREVER BEACH

Photographs and video \u00a9 KyleeliseTHT and T-Nathaniel Thomas

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Have the residents of South Venice, Fla. an ownership stake, implied or documented, or any control over what happens to or at the ferryboat park and South Venice Beach? There are short and long explanations that might clarify these questions. 

Either way, the answer is mostly “No.”

No legal opinions are implied in this article or by this writer—just observations of words written on ostensibly binding documents.

While the language in the South Venice Beach Endowment Trust document includes holding onto the properties “in perpetuity” and “for public benefit,” there are allowances written to the contrary.

The South Venice Civic Association (SVCA) and the South Venice Beach Endowment Trust (SVBET) essentially appear to have softened over time the residents’ and property owners’ direct assurances through a series of deeded and organizational maneuvers from the May 2001 SVCA/SVBET Trust agreement through 2003 and 2004 in deeds from SVCA and SCVA, Inc. to SVBET.

Any language that remains indicating otherwise might just be purely unenforceable public relations.

More to the point, SVCA and SVBET nearly undid the very spirit of the Smadbeck/W & A Construction Corporation’s gifts by setting aside one of the “conditions and restrictions” in the original deed that might have protected the community assets from being severed from the residents and property owners of South Venice.

The Trust agreement document begins in alignment with the original intention, sans the one omission. It includes in the introduction, “By this Agreement, the Settlor establishes this Trust to take legal title to and hold and manage in perpetuity for public benefit and enjoyment of Community residents and property, all such assets and properties as legally described… ”.

The first item under “Trust Purpose and Assets” reiterates, “To hold, manage, and maintain in perpetuity all Trust Holdings and to provide them for public benefit and enjoyment of Community residents and property owners.” 

But that one item that SVCA omitted from the 2003 and 2004 deeds to SVBET essentially voids the words “... to hold and manage in perpetuity for public benefit and enjoyment of Community residents and property.”

SVBET can sell the beach and ferry properties. And the monetary assets, including the $450,000 profit held in trust from the 2008 sale of property adjoining a local park in Sarasota County, can be redistributed to another entity.

Take the sale of the property to Sarasota County.

In a September 2008 affidavit signed by then SVBET Trustee Maureen Holland, she asserts, “The Trust currently is the owner of the following real property,...”.

Ms. Holland also affirmed that “The Trustees have the power to convey the real property held in Trust, and no amendment has been made to the Trust changing or negating this power.”

No longer exists a promise of a “Forever Beach” held “in perpetuity” for South Venice residents and property owners despite whatever guarantees the Smadbecks intended and SVCA initially upheld, either on paper or word of mouth.

In contrast to the opening paragraph of the Trust formation document, by page five, SVBET relied on a legal concept called Cy-près doctrine to dispense with the condition that SVCA had already omitted from the deeds by citing “the W. and A. Construction Company, as the original owner-developer of the South Venice subdivisions, as they were then known, and as the original Grantors and party to the deed covenants and restrictions, are both entities that no longer exist;..”.

Cy-près doctrine takes precedence when a party to an agreement cannot carry out an original condition.

Twenty-four years earlier, SVCA honored condition seven.

Condition 7 - the one omitted and to which the Trust document refers reads, “The foregoing conditions and covenants shall be covenants running with the land and bind the premises, with the right of re-entry to the Grantors in case of breach, provided, however, that said right of re-entry shall not be available against any municipal corporation to whom the premises may be conveyed.”

In the late seventies, early eighties, SVCA and Sarasota County brokered a land swap that would give SVCA contiguous Gulf frontage instead of the divided North and South beaches that were the original gift.

Author Vida Davis Hoffacker, a former South Venice resident, included a copy of two letters in her book, Our Little Corner of Florida. 

On behalf of SVCA, a law firm contacted William Blayer.

In September 1977, Mr. Blayer, the vice president of Warren and Arthur Smadbeck, Inc., wrote in part: “We might be agreeable to permitting the property exchange between the Civic Association and the County. Before giving such approval, we would want to have a map showing the size and location of the Caspersen property to be taken in trade, and membership resolution by the association approving it.”

After Mr. Blayer’s inquiry was addressed, on February 15, 1980, he wrote, “Thank you for your letter of February 19th, explaining the reasons why the South Venice Civic Association favors the exchange of beachfront parcels with Sarasota County.

The reasons appear sound, and we consent to the implementation of the Agreement between the parties dated October 26, 1979.”

During a call with this writer, a descendant of Arthur and Warren Smadbeck said that deed matters are ongoing. Another family member handles them now.

The Smadbeck relative declined to give an interview. But, he did confirm the Smadbeck business model of partnering with a local newspaper or chamber to develop communities around lakes, parks, and in areas that were close commuting distances from urban centers. 

The Venice Area Chamber of Commerce was the sales partner for W & A Construction Corporation.

The brothers developed communities in thirty states and built more than a half-million homes.

.How deep is the well of regret?

The Intracoastal Waterway is 3000 miles long and runs inland parallel to the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Plans for the protected passageway grew out of a wartime act to survey transportation routes, known as the General Survey Act of 1824 that expanded through a series of Rivers and Harbors Acts to improve navigation.

The Intracoastal Waterway was established under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945.

The U. S. Army Corps. of Engineers managed the inland dredging that ran southeast from Texas along the Gulf of Mexico, south in Florida, then inland on the Atlantic side north to Cape Cod, Massachusetts. 

The two South Venice footbridges that crossed over Lemon Bay were in the direct path of the dredging operation.

In the latter part of 1959, SVCA was made aware that the footbridges would have to come down to make way for the Intracoastal.

In June of 1960, Colonel Paul D. Troxler of the Army Corps of Engineers advised SVCA “not to relax” its “efforts of having the first bridge removed...” before work reached the site sometime after the initial date of July 1961.

But the residents of South Venice put up a fight, and the bridges remained in place.

The footbridges were the only means of walking inland from the South Venice and Sunset Beach subdivisions to South Venice Beach. 

To try and keep them, SVCA and some residents lobbied government officials, waged letter-writing campaigns, and held a “sit-on” to try and disrupt the inevitable dredging through Lemon Bay.

What to do was a dilemma for the government.

“Our problem is that each one of the lot owners was guaranteed access to the private beach on the bay,” wrote Colonel George Kumpe, the executive director of WCIND

In May 1962, in “another call for help,” Col. Kempe wrote, “The Navigation District is faced with a problem of providing pedestrian access across the Intracoastal Waterway in order to eliminate a suit against some 6500 owners of a mail order development.”

Col. Kempe explored building a “pedestrian lift bridge” that would serve the residents of South Venice and not impede passage along the Intracoastal. After reviewing the Manhattan to Ward’s Island design, he decided it was “too elaborate.”

Such a bridge would need to have a clearance of 90 feet. 

All sorts of remedies were considered, including a ski-lift type of crossing, various bridge types, and motorized vessels.

In 1962, West Coast Inland Navigation District sought eminent domain by “an order of taking” against South Venice Civic Association as a part of a larger scheme to clear the way from the Anclote River in Pinellas county southward to the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County.

The footbridges were still standing in 1963, despite numerous pleas and warnings.

In May 1963, South Venice Civic Association asked WCIN to consider a swing bridge.

When negotiations failed, WCIND took a different approach. Had the footbridges been permitted? But a letter from the Corps of Engineers dissuaded the tactic.

The Court granted the “order of taking” in 1964. The action led to the end of a 3-year legal battle and nearly six-year standoff.

The footbridges were removed in the summer of 1965.  And, WCIND paid $150,000, plus legal fees, that South Venice Civic Association agreed “would provide in perpetuity access by ferry services to both beach areas to members of the South Venice Civic Association and any lot owners in South Venice Subdivision.”

Olaus Caspersen sued SVCA and WCIND over the settlement, claiming that only about ten percent of the more than 1000 residents voted, during the late-summer, out-of-season election. Only 90 residents voted in favor of the settlement, according to the lawsuit.

The Court dismissed Mr. Caspersen’s lawsuit. Ironically, in 1970, SVCA, dissatisfied with the deal it had championed, “sought congressional support” for a vehicle bridge.

Remorseful over the settlement, again, in 1993, SVCA asked the Court to interpret the meaning of the “in perpetuity” stipulation in section seven. Not to be confused with condition seven of the W & A Construction Corporation deeds.

Jim Armstrong, the director of WCIND at the time, viewed the request as a ploy for more money.

“It appears to me that item 11 of the stipulation is quite clear,” Mr. Armstrong wrote in a letter. “I question their legal position in even serving this summons. I don’t believe WCIND could care less as to when or how they spend or spent the $150,000.” He then added, “Please call (SVCA Attorney Jeffery) Boone and see what they really want, which is probably another $150,000!”

Boundless power is only as good as its consensus.

Sandy McHenry pressed her colleagues to a vote at a May 19, 2021, SVBET general meeting. By unanimous decision, the Trust appointed a new 3-person committee to lead an effort to save South Venice Beach.

After John Bridinger, who voted with the other members, resigned that evening, Ms. McHenry left, too, the next day.

The 5-member Trust was already down one. Mr. Bridinger and Ms. McHenry’s resignations left just two trustees - attorneys Ms. Cheryl Cooper and Mr. (Charles) Bauman.

In the months before, when the push to fence the ferryboat property and other proposed changes heated, Ms. McHenry drafted a survey.

“South Venice Community Survey Regarding Possible Substantial Changes That Would Affect You!!! (Please read and respond!).”

Ms. McHenry outlines a host of concerns and considerations, then asks two questions:

1 - Should ferry passes and boat ramp keys continue to be available for purchase for non-residents at double the cost of a resident rate in order to allow us to seek public funding? 

2 - Would you support the installation of an entrance gate for individual entry of ferry pass and boat ramp key holders at 4800 Lemon Bay Drive?

The survey never gained enough support among the Trustees.

Ms. McHenry objected.

“The land was given by the developer, and all the homeowners in the community have ownership of this,” she said, adding, “I believe that the community should have input into what the Trust does so we know what they feel is best for the community. Although I realize that the Trust has final decision-making.”

The day before Ms. McHenry resigned, she urged the board to address another issue to no avail. But the refusal to take up the matter didn't make it go away.

The fence that SVBET put up and signs that the property is private and membership is required created a red-flag issue at the government level.

In a May 17, 2021 email addressed to SVBET and South Civic Association (SVCA), Joseph J. Kraus, Business Professional at Sarasota County Government, had questions about the fencing off of 4800 Lemon Bay Drive. 

Two hundred sixteen thousand, nine hundred seventy-five Federal dollars ($216,975), managed by the West Coast Inland Navigation District and administered by Sarasota County, had been used to fund improvements to the ferryboat house and the boat ramp on the property and financed the 2017 dredging of the ferry channel.

As with all the requests, the category of grants through which SVBET sought to fund the channel dredging, for instance, could only fully pay for publicly accessible projects.

Through its application to finance the dredging of the ferryboat channel, SVBET indicated that it met the criteria.

 An excerpt from a draft copy reads: “Since 2001, the South Venice Beach Endowment Trust (SVBET), a Florida 501c3 Corporation, has operated and maintained the ferry and its attendant properties for the benefit of the public.

The fence and private property signage contradict how SVBET presents its mission when seeking help to fund improvements.

Nine days after Mr. Kraus sent the email, “I have not yet received a reply from SVCA/SVBET,” he wrote.  

South Venice Beach Properties - Community Benefit or Private Interest?

Sixty-four years and five-plus months ago, brothers Dr. Warren Smadbeck and Arthur Smadbeck, through their company W & A Construction Corporation of New York, entrusted two eight hundred foot-long, separated stretches of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico to South Venice Civic Association (SVCA), “a corporation not for profit” to be preserved for the residents of South Venice, Fla.

The brothers purchased the beachfront from Olaus W. Caspersen and his wife Freda R. Caspersen in 1952. All totaled, the Caspersen family sold 3000-plus acres to W & A Construction Corporation during the early 1950s, which would become the South Venice Subdivision.

Ruth Smadbeck, married to Mr. Smadbeck, and Violetta Smadbeck, married to Dr. Smadbeck, handled some aspects of the development’s business through South Venice Corporation.

W & A Construction Corporation deeded several parcels to South Venice Corporation unconditionally as part of its business model. The company did not handle the land gifts to South Venice this way. 

With seven conditions, on December 10, 1956, the Smadbecks deeded inland property that then anchored two footbridges across Lemon Bay and the two beach fronts to a social group that would become the non-profit South Venice Civic Association.

SVCA could never develop the properties. They could mortgage the properties without the Smadbecks’ or representatives’ permission. All property owners in South Venice would be “entitled to membership” to SVCA under its by-laws. 

The Civic Association would manage the rules of the property “subject to the right of the Grantor.” The organization would pay all taxes and assessments.

SVCA would maintain the beach “for the respective purposes for use by the property owners in the subdivision (South Venice).”

And, if ever the group could not or would not honor the Smadbecks’ conditions, the developers included in the seventh condition -- a “right of re-entry,” giving them or their successors the right to take back its gift to the property owners of the South Venice subdivision that the company developed.

The timing and order of this arrangement were not without coordination.

South Venice Civic Association was Chartered on December 22, 1955, under the leadership of temporary officers, with $100,000 in assets from W & A Construction Corporation. Its drafted by-laws preemptively included the authority and responsibility it would exercise over the communal properties for which it would hold deeds and manage on behalf of South Venice residents and property owners.

Harry R. Smith, the first permanent SCVA president, was elected on January 17, 1956.

Back then, the community was tight-knit. And, even though several special interest groups had formed, residents always shared the work of the community.

That’s how things used to work in South Venice, said long-time resident Frank Oddo.

Mr. Oddo is the last serving President of South Venice Area Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. before the County provided municipal fire services. He is also a former president, vice president, and board member of the South Venice Civic Association.

South Venice was an independent, self-governing community, according to Mr. Oddo.

“We used to have our own code enforcement. We used to have our own community security,” Mr. Oddo said.  “Everything that used to be is not anymore.”

He used to enjoy bass fishing in the local lakes. Over time, the recreational areas became unkempt eyesores. Turning them over to the County was the only way to deal with the problem, Mr. Oddo said.

“South Venice was never really treated like a part of Sarasota County,” he said. The burden of managing the community mostly fell to its residents. 

Mr. Oddo recalled when he made a deal to have used asphalt from a resurfacing job delivered to the ferryboat park and made a road from the entrance to the ferry dock with the help of other men in the community. He “and a few of the guys” put together the shed that houses the well, which he dug.

With so much invested at the ferry park, Mr. Oddo did not believe that South Venice Beach is a deeded gift to the community.

“The beach doesn’t belong to South Venice,” he said. “The beach doesn’t belong to anyone. You can’t own the beach in Florida.”

Some beaches are privately owned. And, yes, one of those treasures, though badly eroded, backs South Venice.

“If I had a vote, which I don’t…, I would vote to give that whole area back to Sarasota County because they would put a road down. They’d renourish the beach. They’d put in restrooms,” Mr. Oddo said. “And you could still have your ferry. They could still ferry people across. But, the condition that the beach is, now, you’ve got nothing….”

Susan Hutson wants to help change the situation at the beach. So does Bruce Burnett.

Mr. Burnett has personally donated more than $25,000 to support the beach renewal effort. The  Al and Nancy Burnett Charitable Foundation, Mr. Burnett’s family charity, donated $75,000 to the Trust.

The money is earmarked to pay for the preliminary work toward beach restoration. Part of his donation paid for the ESA environmental report. 

“To save the beach, I think it’s a four-, five million dollar project,” he said.

“The board just never wanted to bring this issue to be discussed,” he said. “It’s frustrating that we have such a beautiful piece of property, and nobody seems to want to get involved.”

If the Trust doesn’t move to put the balance of his and his foundation’s money to good use soon, he doesn’t expect to offer more financial support.

“To give you an idea, I did not make a donation this year to the beach Trust, but I gave money to Mote (Marine) in Sarasota because I like what they’re doing,” he said. “There are other organizations that we could easily fund that could accomplish similar goals in the future.”

Ms. Hutson, a hydrologist, has an esteemed background as a water-usage scientist. While her work is mainly in water distribution in domestic and industrial use, she is a naturalist committed to sustaining a healthy water ecosystem in her backyard and the beach beyond.

With the environmental study from ESA in hand, Ms. Hutson has relentlessly supported a plan to move this work forward.

“The next step is to look at the various standard practice options would do for the beach, “ she said, adding. “And that evaluation generally takes place with a model - a mathematical model, where the data that they have collected is put into the model. The various options, such as groins or (geo-)textile tubes or beach renourishment, are then evaluated to what their possible success and what those costs would be.”

But Ms. Hutson also believes that there’s not sufficient support to get the work underway. So much energy, she indicated, has been invested in shuttering and limiting access to the ferry park.

“I used to walk down to the ferry at night because I’d be writing, or I’d be reading, and I would just want to decompress,” Ms. Hutson said. Then, she lamented, “And, you can’t do that anymore.”

Ms. Hutson is not opposed to changes that make the park safer.

“So, I have no objections to security, she added. “I really advocate master plans. And, I really advocate community input. The fence is just a symbol of those things not really happening.”

It was just a rumor until moments before this article was released. Former SVCA board member Maureen Holland made a public statement on this writer’s Nextdoor post. And the news is timely.

“I expect that you already know this, but the Beach Trust was created by and funded by the Civic Association. Over the years there have been conversations about some sort of consolidation, organizational consolidation between the two organizations. Whenever those conversations have happened, it has always been the intention that the final organization would be a 501(c)3.”

Clarification - Ms. Holland is listed on the organization's webpage as a current SVCA board member. However, she has indicated that she resigned from her post in protest of certain SVBET appointments made by SVCA.

With only two SVBET members left -  just as the fence had been a plan waiting for a reason - this might be another one of those opportune moments.

Thank you for reading the series, THE PROMISE OF A FOREVER BEACH, by KyleeliseTHT 

Have lovely days, consistently. K

406 × 127

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Writer’s Notes: I live close to South Venice Beach and its related properties. And, I have a good deal of personal knowledge about the community and its history. These stories, however, are not the product of my opinions nor are they based on my objectives. I am writing for my community, first, for you, whether or not you live here, and for the sole purpose of giving information. What is made of what is read here will vary.  That is a reasonable diversity of reactions. If these stories inform, educate, or add something new to the reader's understanding, then my work has succeeded. - KyleeliseTHT

*Historical documents, photographs, interviews and information, and records provided and used courtesy of Westcoast Inland Navigation District, Venice Museum & Archives, Sarasota County Government, Sarasota County Sheriff's Office, South Venice Beach Endowment Trust, and area citizens. The writer thanks all for access to these materials, information, and time. The writer also thanks participating community members for their time and candid interviews.