Michiale Schneider

Don’t want a recycling facility next to your community? How about a landfill? What about wetlands being bulldozed over and filled in? If you are someone who says no, no and no… take notice! Recently, the city of Cape Coral has taken a controversial stance of suing its own taxpaying citizens, The Three Fishermen, because they challenged Cape Coral’s decision to remove the Chiquita Lock (which Cape Coral tried to do once before and lost because of the environmental implications). This legal action could signify a broader strategy of intimidation aimed at deterring residents from voicing opposition to future developments.

The lawsuit raises concerns — especially because it’s NOT a “winner take all” scenario. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, Cape Coral must prove that The Three Fishermen were behaving “frivolously” for an “improper purpose” in their decision to challenge the removal of the Chiquita Lock due to the implications for local ecosystems. Why would anyone think that three environmental advocates, including one who has won awards for his advocacy and volunteerism, would be acting “frivolously” or without merit by trying to protect the very waterways on which all we all thrive?

Southwest Florida boasts stunning natural resources: beaches, lush wetlands, and diverse wildlife, all of which attract millions of tourists each year. Our exceptional blend of a warm climate, vibrant sunsets and unique flora and fauna make it a picturesquely perfect getaway! The destruction of these resources would not only diminish our natural beauty, but also severely impact our tourism industry, leading to significant economic losses. The Three Fishermen understand this.

Yet, there is a growing trend in which Cape Coral seeks to rezone wetlands for development projects, often justified by claims of economic growth but at significant ecological costs. They use mitigation “credits” (i.e., taking credit for reducing pollution in an unrelated location) to offset environmental impacts (i.e. polluting another area) caused by development, such as wetland or habitat loss. But it does not always work as intended and our polluted waters exemplify that. They are simply trading pollution in one area for another. In this case, Cape Coral used mitigation credits from a reuse water project to allow contaminated waters to flow through the Chiquita Lock into the Caloosahatchee, thereby threatening the water quality, ecosystems and public health of neighboring Fort Myers and Sanibel.

The Three Fishermen have stated at City Council meetings, they are on fixed incomes. Why then, would Cape Coral continue to “let this play out” (as some council members have stated) knowing they will never recoup the millions of taxpayer dollars spent on attorney fees? Why aren’t they using this money constructively for something like salary increases for Cape Coral city employees?

Cape Coral’s actions related to the lock could be viewed as a preemptive strike against ANY potential opposition to development plans. By suing citizens who challenge municipal actions, Cape Coral sends a clear message: opposition will not be tolerated.

This action signals a potentially slippery slope. If citizens are hesitant to challenge the city, it could embolden local officials to push through unjustified rezoning of wetlands and other significant environmental changes. Consider what the city has done with Jaycee Park, despite citizen input. But now there is talk about Redfish Point, proposals to rezone portions of Yellow Fever Creek, the Bimini Basin project, the Seven Island development, etc. Cape Coral spends taxpayer dollars on plans before citizens even have an opportunity for input!

Cape Coral’s decision to initiate legal proceedings against community members who challenge its authority raises fundamental questions about governance, transparency, and the role of citizen participation in local affairs. As Cape Coral navigates its development ambitions, residents MUST remain vigilant, advocating for environmental protections and THEIR right to question local governance. Only through active participation and community solidarity can people ensure their voices are heard and valued in decisions that affect their environment and future.

Community members must recognize the stakes involved; the health of Cape Coral’s wetlands and the democratic principles of engagement are inextricably linked. Citizens must stand together and assert their rights–and challenge any perceived fear tactics employed by local authorities and encourage a more transparent and accountable city government.

Cape Coral’s suppression of environmental activism could serve as a troubling blueprint for other Florida municipalities by illustrating a strategy where development priorities overshadow ecological concerns, potentially normalizing governmental practices that silence citizen voices and prioritize economic gain over environmental stewardship, thereby compromising long term sustainability for short-term development goals.

— Michiale Schneider is a North Fort Myers based artist and photographer known for her nature-focused work which sells globally.