Rejected 4-1: Inside the Plan to Let Developers Rebuild Bigger on Siesta Key — and the Commissioner Who Pushed It
A Sarasota County Facts investigation into the Voluntary Condo Rebuild Amendment, who initiated it, who it would have benefited, and why four commissioners said no.
By Sarasota County Facts Research Team
SARASOTA COUNTY — On a Tuesday morning in November 2025, the Sarasota County Commission held a public hearing on a proposed amendment that critics say would have fundamentally altered the character of Siesta Key — one of the most celebrated barrier islands in the United States and a centerpiece of District 2.
The proposal was called the Voluntary Condo Rebuild Amendment. Its proponents described it as a modernization measure — a way to allow aging condominium complexes to voluntarily rebuild with updated designs, improved storm resilience, and better amenities.
Its opponents described it as something else entirely: a Trojan horse for developers.
The commission voted 4-1 to reject the amendment. The lone vote in favor — the commissioner who initiated the proposal in the first place — was Mark Smith, the District 2 representative who is now asking those same voters to re-elect him on August 18.
Sarasota County Facts examined the public record surrounding this amendment — the commission meeting minutes and video, the text of the proposed changes, the public hearing testimony, the staff analysis, and the identities of those who stood to benefit. Here is what the record shows.
What the Amendment Would Have Done
The Voluntary Condo Rebuild Amendment proposed changes to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code — the two foundational legal documents that govern how land can be used, how densely it can be built upon, and how tall structures can rise within the county.
Specifically, the amendment would have allowed existing high-density condominium complexes on barrier islands to be demolished and rebuilt at greater height, density, and intensity than what currently exists — provided the property owners voted to participate.
The word "voluntary" did significant lifting in the amendment's branding. In practice, as opponents testified at the public hearing, the most likely scenario was not a group of aging retirees voting to modernize their building. It was a real estate developer or investment corporation purchasing enough units in an existing complex to trigger a buyout, then demolishing the structure and replacing it with something substantially larger and more profitable.
The Comprehensive Plan exists precisely to prevent this type of incremental intensification on barrier islands — land that is uniquely vulnerable to hurricanes, storm surge, flooding, and evacuation constraints. Sarasota County's own policies restrict buildout in high-hazard coastal zones for a reason: more density means more people in the path of the next storm.
Who Asked for This?
This is perhaps the most revealing question in the entire affair.
No condo association on Siesta Key requested the amendment. Not one.
The proposal that was once mentioned years ago in connection with Sea Club V — a specific complex that had explored rebuilding — never materialized into a formal request. Sea Club V did not move forward with any rebuild plans. The stated justification for a countywide policy change had no active constituency.
The amendment was initiated by Commissioner Mark Smith.
Smith, an architect by profession, argued during the hearing that the amendment was a reasonable measure to allow property owners to improve their buildings. He emphasized that rebuilding is expensive and complex, and that no one would undertake it frivolously.
His colleagues were not persuaded.
The Public Hearing
Residents who testified at the November 2025 public hearing were overwhelmingly opposed. Their arguments, summarized from the meeting record, centered on several themes.
First, that the amendment violated existing Comprehensive Plan policies specifically designed to protect barrier islands from increased intensity. These policies were not abstract guidelines — they were the product of decades of planning, public input, and hard-won compromise between development interests and coastal protection advocates.
Second, that the amendment would open the door for corporate aggregation — developers and investment funds systematically buying out individual condo owners, assembling sufficient ownership stakes to force a rebuild vote, and then demolishing affordable middle-market housing to build luxury high-rises. Critics argued this would permanently change the residential character of communities that current residents chose precisely because of their scale and character.
Third, that increased building height and density on barrier islands would worsen flooding risk, block light and views for neighboring properties, and strain an evacuation infrastructure that is already inadequate during major storm events.
John Doherty, a hearing attendee who opposed the amendment, noted that the initiative had been characterized as a public effort, but was effectively developer-driven despite the absence of any formal request from residents.
Lourdes Ramirez, president of the community organization Protect Siesta Key, characterized the vote as a significant victory for residents who want to protect the island from overdevelopment. She said the vote demonstrated that the commission, as a body, believes the Comprehensive Plan must be upheld.
The Vote
Commissioner Ron Cutsinger voted no. Commissioner Tom Knight voted no. Commissioner Joe Neunder voted no. Commissioner Teresa Mast voted no.
Commissioner Mark Smith voted yes. Alone.
4-1.
BY THE NUMBERS: The Voluntary Condo Rebuild Amendment was rejected 4-1 in November 2025. No condo association on Siesta Key requested the amendment. Commissioner Smith initiated it and cast the lone vote in favor. Source: Sarasota County Commission Meeting Minutes, November 2025; WSLR News, November 20, 2025.
In a body of five members, when four of your colleagues — spanning the ideological range of the board — reject your proposal, the message is unambiguous. This was not a close call. This was not a procedural disagreement. This was a substantive repudiation of the policy direction Smith had chosen.
The Broader Pattern
The condo rebuild amendment does not exist in isolation. It fits within a pattern of development-adjacent decisions that We have documented in previous reporting.
Smith voted to advance the Hi-Hat Ranch road deal — the agreement that shifted approximately half of a $28 million road project from the developer to Sarasota County taxpayers, despite a 2021 ordinance requiring the developer to cover the full cost.
Smith serves on a commission that approved a $2.5 billion budget — the largest in the county's modern record — including the $75.1 million administration center — Project 83203, approved 5-0 in January 2023 with Smith seconding (Res. 2023-022), funded substantially by bonds (the project predates the current commission, but the financing and approvals that advanced it were voted under their watch, with no objection) — while the county faces projected deficits of $31.6 million, $40.8 million, and $39.2 million over the next three fiscal years.
Smith was first elected in 2022 with financial support from a donor network that includes significant construction and development interests — a donor analysis We will publish separately.
None of this proves corruption. Our investigation has found no evidence of illegality. What it demonstrates is a pattern of policy decisions that consistently favor development flexibility over neighborhood protection — in a district where the number one voter concern, across party lines, is overdevelopment.
BY THE NUMBERS: Under the current commission, Sarasota County spending grew 48% in three years while population grew 7.8%. The FY2026 budget of $2.5 billion follows the $75.1M administration center appropriation (Res. 2023-022) and appropriates $41.7M from the General Fund's reserves. Source: Sarasota County CAFR FY2022-FY2025; FY2026 Adopted Budget Resolution.
What It Means for August 18
Mark Smith is asking District 2 Republicans to give him four more years. He is doing so with a voting record that includes a comp plan amendment rejected by his own board, a budget vote that set spending records, and a road deal that critics call a taxpayer betrayal.
His challenger, Kristina Sargent, has made managed growth and Comprehensive Plan enforcement central to her campaign. She carries no development voting record — which is both her greatest strength and her greatest unknown.
Voters who care about the character of Siesta Key, the barrier islands, and the coastal communities of District 2 now have a clear factual record to evaluate. Smith initiated a policy that would have allowed developers to rebuild bigger on the very islands his constituents are trying to protect. His own colleagues told him no.
The voters will have their turn on August 18.
Sources
- Sarasota County Commission Meeting Minutes, November 2025 (Public Hearing — Voluntary Condo Rebuild Amendment)
- Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Planning Element
- Sarasota County Unified Development Code, Barrier Island provisions
- WSLR News, "Sarasota County Commissioners — Except One — Reject Condo Rebuild Amendment," November 20, 2025
- Siesta Sand, "County Commission Candidates Share Views at Advocacy Meeting," February 2026
- Sarasota County Facts previous reporting: "Sarasota's $2.5 Billion Budget Crisis" and "Neunder and Smith Must Go"
Commissioner Mark Smith was invited to provide comment for this article, including any explanation for initiating the amendment and his response to the 4-1 vote. As of publication, he has not responded. The invitation remains open.
- Related coverage:
- Neunder and Smith Must Go: Sarasota Deserves Commissioners Who Keep Their Word
- Sarasota's $2.5 Billion Budget Crisis: How Two Commissioners Broke Every Promise
- From the U.S. Army to the Bayfront: Why Kristina Sargent Is Running Against Mark Smith
