Title: "Skepticism Surrounds Seaward Development’s Push for Mira Mar Preservation"
I read the opinion piece supporting the historic preservation of the Mira Mar, published in the Sarasota Observer on April 21, 2025, with a level of skepticism that was noticeably absent from the author’s perspective. In fact, I detected no skepticism at all—the column read more like a promotional pitch lifted directly from Seaward Development’s playbook.
While my interpretation may come off as jaded, it’s likely closer to reality than the naïve portrayal of a developer who once tried to demolish the Mira Mar but has now supposedly “seen the light” and is altruistically championing its historic preservation.
I imagine an alternative scenario: After having their demolition permit denied, the developer regroups and pivots to a new strategy, perhaps along the line of “Let’s give the public (and officials) what they want, but let’s really make it worth our while.” Suddenly, historic preservation becomes Seaward’s mantra. But to make it viable, they claim they need to add eight more stories to the project — conveniently securing both cost recovery and the primary goal of significant upside.
However, an additional eight stories requires more than a simple zoning change. It demands an amendment to the Sarasota City Plan 2030. This is no small hurdle; a supermajority—four out of five commissioners—must vote in favor to pass such an amendment.
Under Florida law, all municipalities must have a Comprehensive Plan that includes a Future Land Use Element, reviewed every seven years. Think of the Comprehensive Plan as the city’s “constitution” and zoning ordinances as the laws that must conform to it. By that analogy, amending the Comprehensive Plan is a serious matter.
Chipping away at any Comprehensive Plan undermines its purpose. Buyers and investors rely on it when conducting due diligence before purchasing property. Amending it outside of the normal review cycle—especially for a single property—can erode trust and destabilize the market. Investors will rightly ask: “If this change is allowed, what’s next?”
This concern is especially timely, as the City recently convened an Ad Hoc Committee to conduct public meetings and provide comprehensive recommendations for updating the Downtown Master Plan. It seems prudent to let that process unfold rather than allowing a single developer to jump the line—especially if the committee reaffirms the current plan’s designations.
Notably, City Planning Staff recommended denial of Seaward’s proposed amendment in their April 9, 2025, report to the Planning Commission—a fact curiously absent from the Observer’s opinion piece from April 21, 2025.
In an apparent effort to win public support and sway the City Commission, the developer launched a public campaign to “Save the Mira Mar,” even enlisting their former adversary, the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation, who had previously opposed their demolition attempt in 2022.
In my opinion, Seaward’s application and campaign could be interpreted as an inappropriate form of horse trading with the City—offering up purported historic preservation in exchange for the economic equivalent of a major financial subsidy from the public.
"Subsidy": At the April 9, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, City Staff noted that Seaward had not provided adequate financial data or models to support their claims of economic necessity. Granting an additional eight stories is effectively a public subsidy — a significant financial windfall — and the City deserves the opportunity to rigorously evaluate the costs before approving what amounts to a public grant.
"Purported": The developer’s own demolition permit application cited serious structural issues at the Mira Mar, including corroded wood studs, wood rot, and undersized foundations. After the permit was denied, they publicly commented to allow the building to deteriorate until demolition became unavoidable. At a recent Planning Commission meeting, Seaward admitted that all 1980s improvements would be removed as “non-historic.” So, what exactly will be left to preserve—and will it even be salvageable given the ongoing lack of intervention?
"Inappropriate": City Staff noted in their report: “While the applicant has touted this as a ‘Save the Mira Mar’ rehabilitation project, it should be clear that the decision in this case is a comprehensive plan amendment, and those factors and impacts associated with that proposed Future Land Use Map change.” In short, the amendment must stand on its own merits and not be bartered.
Finally, during the Planning Commission meeting, Seaward rejected proposed conditions that would revert the property to its current designation if they failed to deliver on their promises—a red flag, to say the least.
Seaward’s case for an eight-story bonus rests entirely on two shaky pillars: (1) unsubstantiated economic need, and (2) questionable historic preservation.
Given that the amendment would amount to a substantial public grant, it’s simply good public policy for the City to thoroughly verify these claims before taking action.
Better yet, let the recently seated Ad Hoc Committee complete its holistic review of the Downtown Master Plan and determine whether the current Comprehensive Plan designations still best serve the community — rather than fast-tracking an exception for one developer aiming to build 71 luxury condo units.
