In 2005 Mayor Carlos Alvarez vetoed more than a dozen applications to move the Urban Development Boundary. It was the right thing to do then and it is the right thing to do now.
Citizens voted for the strong mayor, exactly because the county commission failed to protect the quality of life that all Miami-Dade residents share.
A mayoral veto is the one way to express, simply and clearly, that there is a balance of leadership to offset the narrow, parochial and developer driven agendas that control county government.
The development lobby knows full well that billions of dollars of infrastructure are needed in water supply and quality before Miami Dade county can meet the objections of the state. Yet they have convinced themselves that moving the UDB now is important.
But consider how Lennar, one of the main proponents for moving the UDB, just sold more than $500 million worth of land for forty cents on the dollar. The only conceivable reason for moving the UDB is for property speculators to increase the worth of their holdings whose values are now under water.
Contact Mayor Alvarez' office, today, to support a veto now! mayor@miamidade.gov
Type the rest of the post here
14 comments:
In 2005 Mr. Alvarez hadn't yet tasted how good it is to be in power. Now that he has been receiving gifts worth thousands of dollars (just like the commissioners), I doubt very much he will be willing to upset the establishment.
His letter-justification published in the Miami Herald today, only proves that in Miami anybody can be bought!
Don't write off the Mayor yet.
To the 1st Anon
The Herald needs to investigate and look for better things to write about. That article was bush league. The Mayor's Ball has been happening since 1998 (Penelas) and is for the benefit of 2 worthy Charitable Organizations, and the Mayor correctly disclosed all of these things. Maybe the Charter Review Comm should recommend total elimination.
Could there be outside political pressure on the Herald to write these articles. Hmmmm.
Contact the Mayor's office asap and ask for (UDB) VETO!!! Do it now, don't wait.
mayor@miamidade.gov
Don't defend the indefensible Anon 3. Had the Mayor provided the cabins he used for his girlfriend and friends, maybe it wouldn't look so bad. Why didn't he provide one for Burgess and Munoz, that are his immediate subordinates instead of family and friends? And why, in your opinion, the Mayor should be exempt from criticism for doing the same things that the commissioners are doing and have done for years?
If you don't like criticisms, don't commit the same shenanigans as your enemies. And, please don't blame Bush, it's silly on your part!
I put the mayor in bed with Natacha on the water issues --- so I can bash --- but I think this Mayor's Ball thing is nada. i agree with anon 3.
This is what the DCA said about moving the UDB last year and nothing much has changed on this particular front (be warned, I cut some stuff out):
INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
MOVING THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY
The Department objects to the nine proposed Miami-Dade County land use amendments (Nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13,17, 23, and 24) which are outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) because they are not internally consistent with the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP),
specifically Land Use Element Policies 8G, 8H, and 3E and Conservation Element Policy 3E.
In order to accommodate the urban developments
proposed in these amendments, it would be necessary for the Urban Development Boundary in the CDMP to be expanded to encompass the amendment sites. Miami-Dade County’s policy regarding movement of the UDB is established in Land Use Element Policies 8G and 8H.
(Note that Land Use Element Policy 8G was renumbered as Policy 8F in recently adopted Amendment 05-2ER, and, similarly, Land Use Element Policy 8H was renumbered as Policy 8G; however, for purposes of consistency with the amendment package and the correspondence received, the older designations 8G and 8H will be used in this ORC report.)
Policy 8G provides guidance on the potential development capacity that should be available within the UDB, and it addresses how demand and land supply for residential and nonresidential uses are determined.
For residential land use, Land Use Element Policy 8G states that the UDB should contain developable land having capacity to sustain projected countywide residential demand for a period of 10 years after adoption of the most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), plus a 5-year surplus (a total 15-year Countywide supply beyond the date of the most recent EAR adoption in 2003, thus extending the date to 2018).
For non-residential land uses, Land Use Element Policy 8G states that the adequacy of nonresidential land supplies shall be determined on the basis of land supplies in subareas of the County appropriate to the type of use, as well as the Countywide supply within the UDB. The adequacy of land supplies for neighborhood- and community-oriented business and
office uses shall be determined on the basis of
localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts,
Minor Statistical Areas (MSAs) and combinations
thereof. Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof shall be considered along with the Countywide supply when evaluating the adequacy of land supplies for regional commercial and industrial activities.
The Miami-Dade County staff analysis concludes that the present boundaries of the UDB contain adequate non-residential land supplies, according to the requirements of Land Use Policy 8G. They do not meet the requirements of Land Use Element Policy 8G for expanding the UDB, and their adoption would be inconsistent with Policy 8G.
Land Use Element Policy 8H specifies that certain
specified areas shall either not be considered for
addition to the UDB or shall be avoided for addition to the UDB. Certain other areas shall be given priority for inclusion after demonstrating that a countywide need exists, in accordance with Policy LU-8G.
Patience pays ladies and gents . . . just wait, your boy Alvarez will not let you down.
No cojones
Veto please...
last anon:
Since you asked so nicely. I would suspect your wish has already been granted.
Details, details?
read the Herald on-line
To the Anon post after Frank Abignale Jr------
no cojones
Who did you mean?
Balls of VETO.
Post a Comment