Polk County News | Photos | Breaking News

CSX Hub: What Was The New Information?

Posted May 30, 2007 by Billy Townsend

Updated May 30, 2007 at 05:29 PM

Here is a link to the letter from the state Department of Community Affairs that all but requires that the CSX rail hub in Winter Haven undergo a full regional review. I say all but requires because the letter makes clear that CSX can seek a sort of binding arbitration process to decide if the rail hub/distribution center is or isn’t a development of regional impact.

What the letter does say categorically is that no development can occur on the site until it either goes through the DRI process or is formally cleared of going through it.

CSX spokesman Gary Sease said the company hasn’t yet decided what to do in response to the letter. He said CSX will continue to talk with the state and “review the alternatives” available to it.

So what changed? What caused the state to revoke its informal clearance.

The new letter cites the additional 20 acres purchased for the project’s roadway access to State Road 60 and a “project map or plan, which, as submitted to the City of Winter Haven, depicts a Phase II of the project to be located on land contiguous to the 318-acre parcel.”

What’s a little peculiar is that both of those issues were touched on in CSX’s first successful request for a “clearance letter” a little more than a year ago.

The first issue – the connector road - was mentioned in the original letter only obliquely, with no reference to acreage. But it was mentioned. The second issue – the second phase - was dealt with pretty overtly. I’ve written about this before. CSX said it wasn’t sure what – or even if – it would develop on the 930-acre second piece. That was enough for the state to grant the informal clearance letter.

Apparently the map and 20-acre figure recently came to the department’s attention and were enough to cause DCA to revoke the informal clearance. DCA spokesman Jon Peck on Wednesday said there’s no inconsistency in that. He said the department has all along maintained – and the letters themselves back it up - that the clearance letters were informal and subject to change with new information. 

But late Wednesday, Winter Haven issued this statement:

“The issues raised in the May 29 DCA letter that revokes earlier clearance given for development of the ILC have been covered in previous correspondence between DCA and CSX legal counsel. DCA was made aware of the Pollard Road extension, as well as the land adjacent to Phase I being under contract to CSX.  The correspondence included the development’s size, the access road and the second phase of the project and it’s adjacency to Phase I.

It is DCA’s call as to whether a DRI is necessary under the factual circumstances. DCA has determined that one is required. Winter Haven supports that and will work cooperatively with all concerned as we go through the process.”

Compare the letters for yourselves and see how they match up with what the state and Winter Haven are saying.

What does seem fairly clear was that the letters sent by the Polk County Commission and Lake Wales City Commission urging a full DRI review mattered. Greene cited public scrutiny on the project in Tuesday’s Ledger story.

Peck said he thinks the new information came to light through those letters, rather than any formal legal challenge of the DRI clearance.

CSX’s Sease said it’s too early know how the presumed delay in the hub project will affect the half-billion dollar plan to reorganize freight traffic in the state and bring commuter rail to the Orlando area.

Sease did say the Winter Haven project is “a necessary part of the overall plan.”

“We’ve made it clear that we cannot go forward with [the commuter rail plan] until we can relocate terminal operations in Orlando to the Winter Haven site,” Sease said.