Editorial: City shouldn’t allow itself to be stampeded on Deseret Ranch annexation

When Orlando City Council members take their first look at a massive proposed annexation this week , they will hear some big numbers: The Farmland Preserve/Deseret Ranches property covers an astounding 52,453 acres, or 82 square miles. And they'll hear a lot of talk from the folks who want to develop that property — gentle boasts about their stewardship and eco-friendly planning, designed to soothe fears about the impact of plopping down a development the size of a good-sized city in the middle of unspoiled wetlands and pastures.

But city leaders really only have to keep one number in mind: 100. As in, 100% of Orlando city voters are also registered to vote in Orange County. And as Orange County residents, they will be deciding— in just a few months — on two county charter amendments that are designed to mitigate the pitfalls of giant, gulping annexations like this.

Commentary: The fiscal case for Orlando not annexing Deseret Ranch

It's clear that the owners of the Deseret Ranch property are trying to stampede the city into taking on this project before voters have the chance to put guardrails on the kind of hasty action that can only benefit the interests of developers. They've as much as said so — in August, when they announced they would be seeking annexation, they implied the county had been too difficult to work with. That sounds a little like code for "they won't let us get away with anything" — the regulatory equivalent of "if Mom says no, ask Dad."

City officials should not allow themselves to be rushed. And Orlando residents should reach out to their commissioners, hopefully before Monday's preliminary vote, and let commissioners know they don't appreciate the developers' attempt to undercut voters at the ballot box in November.

Endorsement: Judge protected Orange voters. Now voters should protect rural Orange County

They can also urge Orlando officials to ask the right questions.

Why would Orlando leaders undercut their own residents to make one big landowner/development group (a "for profit investment affiliate" of the Church of Latter Day Saints) happy? Why would they saddle Orlando taxpayers with potentially massive bills for extending city utilities, police services, schools, roads and other amenities to hundreds of thousands of newcomers whose numbers can't even really be estimated — because Deseret's plans are so lamentably vague? What is the massive rush to get this approved, just a few months before voters have the chance to set standards for handling this kind of mega-development?

And why would Orlando commissioners accept the implicit insult — that they will be easier to manipulate or even dominate than county leaders? Why would they strain municipal resources by agreeing to oversee development on a scale that city planners aren't really set up to manage?

In a precisely worded letter to city officials, the leader of Florida Audubon laid out the discrepancies between the way the city of Orlando and Orange County government handle development. City leaders often focus on issues such as improving blighted areas and providing a balance of big-city energy and historic suburban communities, Julie Wraithmell pointed out. County government, on the other hand, has the expertise and the regulatory guardrails to deal with projects that carry the potential for significant impacts on local ecosystems, transportation networks and regional quality of life.

Much of the land to be annexed falls within the Florida Wildlife Corridor, which is providing critical habitat for hundreds of species of animals, birds and plants. The property is also significant for Central Florida's drinking-water supply, provides hydrological stability to major ecosystems and serves as a flood-control mechanism for the region, Wraithmell wrote in her letter to the commission.

Orlando commissioners don't have to decide, right now, who to believe: The owners of the property, or the environmentalists and smart-growth advocates who are predicting that the project could put an unsustainable strain on natural and government resources alike. They don't have to speculate how many dwelling units the new development might include, or how much the city will have to shell out for the services those new residents will need. And commissioners definitely shouldn't rush into an action that is purposefully designed to silence their own constituents' voices.

Saying "not now" does not automatically mean "no." Once the plans for the Deseret properties are more complete, it might make sense to annex some portions into the city. But that decision should be based on information city leaders just don't have. And that makes "not now" the only sensible response.