Compared to Miami-Dade, Martin County is positively bucolic. Just like Miami-Dade, Martin County is highly developed at the coast and the development eases west of the Turnpike into thousands of acres of open farmland. The building boom sucked up comparatively more open space here than Martin County but the land speculators, there, are itching the same way they were in South Dade for more growth. What stands in their way? An urban service boundary, like Miami-Dade's. An agitated public that doesn't want more bad growth that costs quality of life, taxpayer dollars, and a declining environment. And, of course, a terrible economy. Nevertheless, Florida Hometown Democracy looms on the horizon that would subject changes here and there to popular vote. Boatloads of developers are climbing aboard the "zone now" and "permit now" train, before the hammer comes down on the old way of doing business. Here are two letters to the editor worth reading on the subject. Someday The Miami Herald will get around to following these issues beyond the cartoons of Jim Morin?Treasure Coast Palm
Letter: Future Group's proposals 'not the way' to protect Martin County
Monday, July 13, 2009
What’s the best way to break Martin County’s urban services boundary that has prevented sprawl development in rural parts of the county, where most agree limited development, and no urban services, is in the best interest of the public and taxpayers, the environment and the quality of life?
You create a group promoting the idea that new, sustainable communities can be located in those areas at no cost to the public, without the need for publicly supported infrastructure, and you sell it based on the false premise the county not only doesn’t have enough land available for new development, but needs to change its rules to accommodate a population much larger than what exists today.
This is what the County Commission is being asked to sign up for on July 14.
You don’t say anything about who this benefits. You don’t mention staff reports that say the county has no need for any of this.
You do present a blizzard of proposed changes to the comprehensive plan that recommend getting rid of the system that has worked well enough for more than 20 years to give Martin County one of the best qualities of life in Florida.
You make the false claim that the county must accommodate any and all new population growth, when the state planning agency already has said communities have to make those decisions based on their ability to pay, as well as the effects new growth has on environmental and infrastructure needs.
You also don’t acknowledge the available capacity for development on vacant land that hasn’t even received a building permit, or the recently expanded development potential in the community redevelopment areas.
The County Commission must understand this is not the way to protect the public from the kind of overdevelopment that plagues much of South Florida.
Charles Pattison, president
1,000 Friends of Florida
Tallahassee
Daytona Beach News Journal
Amendment would please Jefferson
By REBECCA EAGAN
FLORIDA VOICE
Thomas Jefferson sold me on Florida Hometown Democracy. To the full-court press by business groups against this citizen amendment he resounds: "I am not among those who fear the people." (Letter to Sam Kercheval, 1816.) Similarly he tells John Taylor, "the further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government the ingredient of republicanism . . . the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights."
In 1795, to Mann Page, he tartly dubs those who would bypass the public "rogues . . . who, rising above the swinish multitudes, always contrive to nestle themselves into places of power and profit . . . stealing the people's good opinion, and then steal from them the right of withdrawing it, by contriving laws and associations against the power of the people themselves."
It's self-evident why industries behind "Floridians for Smarter Growth" (FSG) seek to scuttle Hometown Democracy -- the people voting would put a dent in their influence over land use. But their recent assertion -- that "Amendment 4 would sideline ordinary citizens" -- is disingenuous.
They cite the St. Pete Beach saga, where lawsuits were filed, muddling the direct vote process. But, the scrap arose not because the concept and structure of citizen referendum on comp plans is flawed. Withholding a questionable item from the ballot -- citizen "sidelining"-- can happen anytime regardless of who decides land use. Foggy wording has derailed constitutional and charter amendments that have zilch to do with comp plans. The problems in St. Pete Beach stem not from the fundamental referendum structure itself but from individual players' actions. Missteps (and lawsuits) also flourish in places where commissioners alone decree land use.
"The functionaries of public power rarely strengthen in their dispositions to abridge it . . ." Indeed.
Lesson from St. Pete Beach: make referenda clear (and authored by a neutral party) so that folks can wisely vote. Put this in Amendment 4's enabling legislation. SPB's trials are not peculiar to land-use referenda, or indictment of the fundamentals of Florida Hometown Democracy.
Snarls abound under the "old" way: when public hearings aren't properly noticed or held; administrative challenges filed when amendments run foul of a county's comp plan; and quirky beefs, as in Orange County, where a landowner sued over Innovation Way's apportionment of conservation lands. The status quo by no stretch bullet-proofs against snafus. Such is the nature of our crowded state. More sprawl grace'a Senate Bill 360 is no antidote.
Amendment 4 should go far to bring stability to hometowns that is key to happiness and pride in place.
In 1812, Jefferson advised F.A.Van der Kemp: "The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it . . . unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals . . . selected for the trust."
Doubtless, Jefferson would not balk from granting votes to us just because fears are conjured by the opposition. For him, the principle of direct control by the people far outweighed in magnitude any attendant problems -- which could be worked out.
St. Pete Beach narrates Florida's growth struggle and how ours should be the last word. It may even help clarify statutes for Amendment 4. Under it, comp plan changes by plebiscite will be constitutional, not one tiny town's stab at growth curbs that got high-jacked by the usual suspects. Bitter tugs-of-war needn't occur. If sitting bodies bring reasonable plans after polling stakeholders, these can smoothly be put to vote. Likewise, applicants can engage citizens and expect yeas. But the people must prevail.
Floridians for Smart Growth has a right to sway opinion and to wear a "smart growth" cape, but its huge donors are building and real estate groups.
Hometown Democracy poses as nothing but what it is -- conceived to restore say to people on community changes that affect them. Fear should not deprive Floridians of this voice. Few things cloud our well-being more than collusion by "functionaries" with industry to thwart the public will -- as (I feel) we have now.
"Any evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than those from the egotism of their agents."
Jefferson knew the score. He was willing to chance power in the people's hands. Florida Hometown Democracy -- Amendment 4 -- is the real McCoy.
Eagan, an artist and conservationist, lives in Winter Park.
5 comments:
What's so great about existing comp plans?! EOM refuses to answer this basic question. You don't want progressive planning, you're just afraid of change. Yet you keep writing like Amendment 4 is good for smart growth, that's dishonest.
OK, to play devil's advocate, what's so bad about existing Comp plans except they can be changed so frequently?
The same expert planners and consultans who helped devise the ones that exist would be writing new ones.
The question is, are you really "planning" for the future if you keep changing the map before the planning window has been reached?
The answer, of course, is no. That is just changing the rules at developers' request as you go along, and that is not planning. That accomodating a special interest without regard for planning.
I think if you analyzed comp plan changes you would find that most changes are not initiated by the county or municipality based on the county's planning staff identifying the NEED for the change but are based on the desire for the change by landowners wanting increased density for development.
How is it planning to allow change without need?
Jill, that still doesn't answer why we should freeze THESE comp plans, i.e. the ones that currently exist. So you want to fight a 10-acre comp plan change ni your city? Does that mean you should lock in the other 490 acres of bad planning? Amendment 4 defies logic, UNLESS your primary motivation is fear of change. If your primary goal is better, more progressive planning, put your time and energy into finding ways to speed that up, don't waste your time defending an overblown delay tactic.
Counties and municipalities are mandated to evaluate and appraise their comp plans every seven years.
That isn't really a long time in planning years for conceived plans to develop.
It doesn't matter if it's a new plan or an old one, if you keep changing it twice a year, not because the changes are necessary to implement the comp plan (or they would have been made during te EAR process)but because some developer has purchased the property and wants to change the land use to increase residential densities,that is not planning. That is putting growth where it hasn't been planned to increase an indvidual or corporation's profit at the public expense.
Post a Comment