Short answer- The Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority.

The New College land controversy raises a larger question about who controls
our local airport.

For more than three years, I have been asking why the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority
(SMAA) has been so determined to sell over 30 acres of Sarasota Bradenton International
Airport (SRQ) land to New College of Florida and the state.

I now believe there is another question the Sarasota-Manatee community should be asking:
Who governs the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority—and who do those commissioners
answer to?

Every member of the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority is appointed by the Governor of
Florida.

Not some of them.

All of them.

And after comparing the governance of Florida's commercial-service airport authorities and
special districts, I found something even more significant: SMAA is the only Florida
commercial-service airport special district or airport authority whose entire governing
board is appointed by the Governor, with no locally appointed, locally elected, or ex-officio
local-government member.

That unusual structure deserves public attention, particularly after what has happened with the
New College property.

A Local Airport Governed Entirely Through Tallahassee

Sarasota Bradenton International Airport exists to serve Sarasota and Manatee Counties. SMAA
itself describes its mission as meeting the air transportation needs of those two counties.

Its governing board consists of six commissioners—three residents of Sarasota County and three
residents of Manatee County.

But Sarasota County appoints none of them.

Manatee County appoints none of them.

The City of Sarasota appoints none of them.

​

All six are appointed by the Governor.

That is not how other Florida commercial-service airport authorities are governed.

As the examples discussed below show, Florida has ample experience operating professionally
managed, financially independent airports without giving one state official the power to select
every member of the governing board.

SRQ is the exception.

Then Came New College

That unusual governance structure might attract little attention if SMAA dealt only with ordinary
airport business.

But beginning in 2023, SMAA pursued an extraordinary transaction involving another institution
of Florida state government: New College of Florida.

New College has long leased more than 30 acres of airport land adjacent to its main campus. In
2023, SMAA agreed to pursue selling that airport land to New College.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had to approve the release of federally obligated
airport land.

It did not.

In April 2024, the FAA rejected the proposed release. The FAA identified multiple problems,
including the airport's rapid growth and the possible future need for the land. The FAA also
questioned whether disposing of the land was in the best interest of the national airport system.
That should have caused a fundamental reconsideration of the proposed sale.

Instead, SMAA appealed the FAA decision in 2024, so the issue continued.

The FAA again addressed the property in February 2025 and imposed significant requirements
on future changes involving the land. By late 2025, SMAA was obtaining new appraisals as the
possibility of another attempt to sell the property resurfaced.

The issue therefore continued through 2025 and 2026. SMAA has not yet taken this airport land
off the market as I suggested they do.

The Governance Question Can No Longer Be Ignored

I am not claiming that Governor Ron DeSantis ordered SMAA commissioners to sell this land.

​

I have no evidence establishing that.

I am not claiming that any airport commissioner acted improperly merely because that
commissioner was appointed by the Governor.

That would also go beyond the evidence.

But the institutional facts are impossible to ignore.

A board appointed entirely by Florida's Governor has spent three years pursuing a
transaction that would transfer valuable local airport land to an institution of Florida state
government that the Governor wants to expand.

And the FAA—not Sarasota County, not Manatee County and not the City of Sarasota—became
the governmental institution that stopped the transaction.

That should cause us to examine the structure that produced this situation.

The important question is not whether individual commissioners are Republicans or Democrats.

The same governance problem could exist if a Democrat governor appointed every member of
the Authority.

The question is whether any Florida governor should have exclusive appointment power
over an independent governmental authority responsible for one of Sarasota and Manatee
Counties' most important public assets.

A Late-2026 Appointment Question

There is another reason this governance structure deserves attention now. The terms associated
with the current six SMAA seats have reached or passed their scheduled expiration points, while
the same six commissioners continue to serve.

Under the SMAA charter, the Governor appoints their successors. The staggered seat cycles
mean that appointments made after the November 3, 2026 general election could potentially
leave all six seats occupied by selections of the outgoing Governor, with some seat terms
extending to November 2028 and others to November 2030.

There is no public evidence that Governor DeSantis allowed these appointments to remain
unresolved for that purpose, and I do not claim that he did. But the timing creates a legitimate
governance question: could late-term appointments leave an SMAA board selected entirely by
Governor DeSantis in place for many years after he leaves office? To whom would those
commissioners be accountable? To no one?

That question matters because SMAA has continued to pursue the possibility of transferring the
airport land to New College despite the FAA's 2024 rejection. If new appointments are made late

in 2026, the public should pay attention not only to who is appointed, but also to whether the
resulting board continues to support the former governor’s political objectives.

It Wasn't Always This Way

SMAA commissioners were once elected.

That system had serious problems. I know something about those problems because I worked for
SMAA for 13 years, from 2005 until my retirement in 2018, and spent my career working in
airport management and airport real estate.

I am not advocating a return to directly elected airport commissioners.

Professional airport management should not become another arena for continuous political
campaigning.

But those are not our only two choices.

In 2000, Florida legislation changed SMAA from an eight-member elected board to a six-
member Governor-appointed board.

A Florida House staff analysis at the time stated the consequence plainly: local residents would
no longer choose the members of the Airport Authority.

Twenty-six years later, we have enough experience to ask whether the pendulum swung too far.

There Is a Middle Ground

Florida has already shown us that there are many other ways to govern a commercial airport.

Tampa, Jacksonville and Orlando have hybrid airport boards that combine gubernatorial
appointments with direct local-government representation. The Hillsborough County Aviation
Authority includes three Governor-appointed members, the Mayor of Tampa and a Hillsborough
County commissioner. The Jacksonville Aviation Authority combines four Governor appointees
with three Jacksonville mayoral appointees. The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority combines
five Governor appointees with the Mayor of Orlando and the Mayor of Orange County.

The Gainesville-Alachua County Regional Airport Authority goes further. Its nine-member
board distributes appointment power among the City of Gainesville, Alachua County and the
Governor.

The Panama City-Bay County Airport and Industrial District, which operates Northwest Florida
Beaches International Airport, uses a locally based regional board. Its members represent several
local governments in the area rather than being appointed by the Governor.

​

The Sanford Airport Authority is another model. Its board is appointed locally by the Sanford
City Commission.

And the Charlotte County Airport Authority, which operates Punta Gorda Airport, has five
commissioners elected locally by Charlotte County voters.

These different structures make an important point.

Florida does not have one required model for governing a commercial airport.

Some airport authorities have substantial state representation. Some divide appointment authority
between state and local government. Some are entirely locally appointed. One is governed by
locally elected commissioners.

Yet these airports can remain professionally managed and financially independent.

SMAA therefore presents an unusual question. Why should Sarasota Bradenton International
Airport be the only Florida commercial-service airport authority in which every governing seat
is controlled by the Governor, and none is selected by local government?

There is no reason Sarasota and Manatee cannot at least discuss a different arrangement.

I am not proposing how many commissioners the Governor should appoint.

I am not proposing how many Manatee County or Sarasota County should appoint.

I am not proposing whether the City of Sarasota should receive a seat.

And I am not advocating a return to the old system of electing SMAA commissioners.

Those questions can be decided later, if the community decides the present arrangement deserves
reconsideration.

For now, I am proposing something much simpler:

We should start the discussion.

This Is Bigger Than One Land Sale

The proposed New College transaction brought this issue to my attention, but the governance
question extends beyond New College.

SMAA controls approximately 1,200 acres of public airport property and makes decisions
involving leases, development, contracts and valuable real estate. It is an independent
governmental entity exercising essential governmental functions.

​

The Florida Legislature has selected only SMAA for an Airport Permitting Pilot Program. Under
§332.136, Florida Statutes, FDOT is testing alternative airport land use and building permitting

procedures at SMAA.  It would exempt SMAA development from local land- development regulations

and make SMAA the sole regulator of development occurring on airport land. They are to report to

legislative leaders by December 1, 2027 on whether the Pilot Program at SMAA should be expanded to

other Florida airports, changed or terminated.

That makes the question of accountability more important, not less.

As governmental authority exercised by SMAA increases, we should be asking whether the
governments representing the people most directly affected by its decisions should continue to
have no role whatsoever in choosing its governing board.

The New College Controversy May Have Exposed a Larger
Problem

For three years, I have concentrated primarily on one question:

Why would one of the fastest-growing airports in the country permanently sell airport land
near the terminal building that it may need in the future?

I still believe that is the immediate issue.

But I now believe there is a second question:

Why is Sarasota Bradenton International Airport the only Florida commercial-service
airport governed by a special airport authority in which the Governor controls every seat
and local government has no appointment or ex-officio representation?

Perhaps the New College controversy has exposed a larger problem.

The question is no longer only whether SRQ should sell this airport land.

It is also whether Sarasota and Manatee should continue to have no voice in choosing any
of the people who govern their local airport authority.

That is a discussion worth having.

​