Public flushes out beach access restrooms
Twelve Beach residents and two legal representatives expressed their objections for 36 minutes of public comment regarding the placement of mobile restrooms at particular beach accesses at the Fort Myers Beach Town Council meeting Monday. The four modular units were purchased and acquired with approved grant money from the Lee County Tourist Development Council.
The project was declared to be on hold until council holds a work session on the matter, slated for 2 p.m. Monday, Dec. 6. Public comment relating to new information and solutions to the subject will be accepted. For paperwork reasons, information that needs to be addressed to town officials should be brought to their attention by Nov. 24.
After unanimously approving the increased installation cost of $25,000 and beach access locations for the units to be positioned at an Aug. 18 meeting, council was ready to implement the process and sent notifications to abutting property owners to notify them of the beginning of the project. An overwhelming amount of emails and letters to town hall followed the notification and public input at the meeting reinforced the negative response and possible ramifications.
The process began two months prior to the August meeting, when council agreed to purchase and install three mobile-type restroom facilities -plus use a previously owned fourth unit which was used at Newton Park while the property’s building was being reconstructed- at Palm Avenue, Connecticut Street, Dakota Street and Aberdeen Avenue beach accesses. The installation of these new facilities at the assigned beach accesses would have provided accommodations at approximately one-mile intervals for the seven-mile-long island.
Public concern focused on loss of property enjoyment and value; added taxpayer cost of water and to install water lines at the Connecticut Street access; health concerns with cleanliness issues; children’s safety; no benefit for Beach residents; more unnatural obstructions to go with the trash cans, recycle bins and dog stations; encroachment of quiet neighborhoods; unnecessary air conditioning dwellings for homeless people; and ADA-accessible restrooms being place at non-ADA-accessible beach accesses.
“This location is an unacceptable access for handicap people,” said 55-year Beach resident Harry Gottlieb who lives near Beach Access #14 (Aberdeen). “I find only two criteria that were emphasized in making location decisions -spacing and costs. Nowhere do I find discussion of the possible negatives about the public restrooms including aesthetics and economical effects on property owners.”
“I have a concern about the health problems. Who is going to take care of these units? Will they be taken care of once a day or once a week? There is a real safety factor involved here also,” said former FMB Mayor Garr Reynolds, a resident who lives near the Dakota access.”
While one resident sided with the town officials’ decision because he’d rather have public restrooms instead of people urinating in his yard, another subtly suggested placing the four mobile units on the four present council members’ properties.
Town Local Planning Agency chairperson Joanne Shamp, who lives near the Sterling access, offered more positive suggestions as the final speaker during public input.
“I understand the council had the good intention of human need, but I’m wondering if there is some way to compromise and find publicly owned property (for the units),” she said. “I know there are fire department buildings, a large library property and a town hall which are supported by my tax dollars. They are certainly just across the street from the beach, so it’s not a long walk.”
After public comment, council members weighed in on what they heard and admitted flaws in the project.
“This council does it’s best to follow processes. Sometimes the process can be flawed and, perhaps in this case, it is flawed,” said Mayor Larry Kiker. “Be patient with us and be kind enough to give us your input.”
“When we decided we were working on this, we didn’t do this to try to keep anybody up or cut anybody’s property prices down. The way I look at this is ‘never should a good deed go unpunished.’ We’re trying to help, and I’m quite sure we will take all of this into consideration,” said Vice Mayor Bob Raymond.
“I admit I did not do as thorough as a job as I should have,” said Councilman Tom Babcock. “I’m supportive of going back and starting this process over.”
“I think this was done in order to provide comfort to people on the beach, giving the distances they have to walk out there from an access to a facility,” said Councilman Alan Mandel. “It was done to provide a service for residents and guests of the Beach.”