AI generated photo provided by The Argus Foundation.

Accountability has to start at home. A government that bypasses its own constituents has no standing to lecture the state about public participation.

This column is not about whether the County Commission reached the right decision. It is about how they reached it, and why that matters. The process lacked transparency and public participation. The commission may have arrived at the same conclusion through proper channels, but we will never know. What we do know is that community members, advocacy groups, and directly affected property owners were shut out entirely.

At an April 7, 2026 commission meeting, nothing on the published agenda signaled that affordable housing or property rights would be on the table. No county social media post, no commissioner communication, nothing hinted that a controversial item was coming. Yet one was.

This was not a minor housekeeping vote. The commission took action related to the Live Local Act, a state law that has been at the center of heated debate since its passage in 2023, amended in 2025, and still evolving in 2026. The law was championed by Senate President Kathleen Passidomo to cut through local government obstruction of affordable and workforce housing development. Both the Obama and Trump administrations had similarly identified excessive local bureaucracy as a core driver of the housing crisis, agreeing that communities were blocking necessary density increases under the guise of protecting neighborhood character and property values.

The irony here is striking. Sarasota County officials have publicly criticized the Live Local Act for stripping away local control and limiting community input. Those are fair concerns shared by many counties and municipalities. But the commission cannot credibly champion transparency while simultaneously making significant legal and financial decisions without public notice, without publicly published supporting documentation, and without calling for public comment as required by law.

What was absent from that meeting agenda was remarkable. There was no mention that the topic would be raised, no background materials, and no reference to a legal memo issued just two business days prior on the agenda, nor in the agenda packet. Court cases from multiple jurisdictions were cited during deliberations that the public had no opportunity to review. Commissioners read from pre-prepared motions and notes, making clear that at least a few were ready to discuss this, even as it appeared nowhere on the published agenda.

Voting on a controversial item with real budget financial consequences and direct implications for property rights should require notice. It should require supporting documentation. It should require giving affected parties a seat at the table. Asking for a future agenda item without prior notice is one thing. Quietly deciding a substantive legal and policy matter is something else entirely.

The commission has a choice going forward. If its members genuinely believe that transparency and community participation are values worth defending, then they must model those values themselves. Holding the state accountable for bypassing local input rings hollow when the county does the same thing on the very issue they complain about.

Christine Robinson is the Chief Executive Officer of The Argus Foundation.

AI generated photo provided by The Argus Foundation.