"As the elections approach, we'll hear more frequently the cry that Amendment 4 is an idea concocted by the devil himself to plunge Florida into ruin and leave thousands jobless."
This is a translation from El Nuevo Herald that was in the Miami Herald today. I think it is important to know what is printed in the sister paper of the Miami Herald. It was hard to find online so I included the entire article -- it was that good:
DANIEL SHOER ROTH | VIEW FROM EL NUEVO HERALD
Public needs a voice in land-use changes
The epic battle waged by Lowe's to build a superstore on land protected by Miami-Dade's Urban Development Boundary ended last week when Gov. Charlie Crist and the Florida Cabinet voted against the home-improvement chain.
The case of Lowe's marks a victory for the public interest. It is unusual for the government to rule in favor of the public in the face of big-business pressure. Residents have few resources to combat most projects that are incompatible with existing comprehensive land-use plans and that would change the nature of their neighborhoods.
On Lowe's side was a majority of Miami-Dade County commissioners, who approved pushing the urban development line westward, once more, to accommodate the megastore. Lobbying for the change were the power groups: builders and business interests.
On the opposing side were the urban planners, zoning experts and defenders of the environment. But the most important stakeholder is the public, which is concerned about traffic and the quality of life. As more areas are paved, we wind up with more water shortages and more flooding.
In the complex world of comprehensive land-use plans, the public cannot vote.
However, this uneven balance of power could change in the 2010 elections. A proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution would give the public the final say on changes to a comprehensive land-use plan that have been approved by commissioners.
Given that changes to a development plan determine the fate of a community for future generations, it is vital that those changes reflect voters' interests, maintains Florida Hometown Democracy, which is promoting Amendment 4.
Contrary to the arguments of the amendment's foes, the objective would not be to ask voters to approve all changes, no matter how minor, like putting an addition onto a house. Instead, it would be limited to significant changes in development policies.
The Lowe's case is a perfect example. County commissioners approved the project even though many constituents did not agree with extending the UDB to environmentally sensitive land. Had the amendment been in effect, voters could have vetoed the commission's decision.
As the elections approach, we'll hear more frequently the cry that Amendment 4 is an idea concocted by the devil himself to plunge Florida into ruin and leave thousands jobless.
The fact is that this is a David vs. Goliath confrontation. Floridians for Smarter Growth -- which represents builders' associations, real estate agents, shopping centers and landowners -- has already amassed more than $3.7 million for its campaign against Florida Hometown Democracy.
If Florida utilizes all the density that land-use plans now permit, its population could balloon to five times the current level. That is unlikely, particularly now that demographic growth is slight. In any case, studies by the University of Florida estimate that 26.6 million people will live in the state by 2035, compared to around 17 million today.
The point is that we have plenty of room to grow without having to modify the comprehensive plan. For that reason, it is irrational to believe that this amendment would lead to unemployment. Rather, it would prevent elected officials from being influenced by private interests because if developers need to convince someone, that someone would be the public.
Unbridled growth brought us the real-estate debacle. We are losing green land and farmland, traffic is increasingly congested, schools are overburdened, and the water shortage has become alarming. In summary, the quality of life is deteriorating because of the increase in population and ad hoc land-use plan changes.
There are people who bought homes in neighborhoods because they were low-density and had green spaces and little traffic. It is unfair that, a few years later, their property rights would be violated by the addition of a previously unplanned strip mall next door. Those people have the right to decide the future of their surroundings.
7 comments:
I have watched Daniel grow from a land use novice to a voice for the people on land use issues. One might even say he is an expert on the people's perspective. Good work Daniel, keep educating our communities. The scare tactics that will be used to defeat amendment 4 will mandate a steady voice of reason; Daniel will be in the mix.
I agree with the comment!
I am getting to like Amendment 4. Will probably vote for it...unless something changes like the entire government.
Careful what you wish for. Not all of the Comp Plan amendments are about the UDB. Many - most really - are technical and unrelated to growth or sprawl.
Someone should take the time to actually review the various comp plan agendas and see how many of those things we should spend tax dollars sending to the voters.
For major land use changes - especially breaches of the UDB, I can see taking that to the voters. Even then, I think you just need better politicians. Start with public campaign financing and caps on expenditures by any one candidate.
Think how the Lowes case would have played out via referendum: As was mentioned on an earlier post, this was a rounding error in their finances. Astroturf groups like "Citizens for Smart Growth" and "People for good jobs now" etc. funded entirely by Lowes and our builder friends would stuff your mailbox and flood daytime TV with sappy commercials about how voting yes on #256 is a vote for poor families and smart planning.
The public voted to make it harder to pass their own referrenda. Why wouldn't they say yes to #256?
With 360...we don't have a chance. It shows the true colors of the political will: None.
The entire county would have voted on the lowe's not just the neighborhood. I will take my chances with the voters.
So, the question is, how do you get better politicians to run when the money is on the ones who already do?
Well Jill, through solid campaign finance reform. Cut the wallets away from special interest and what is left? The people!
Just the hysteria of the special interest community over FHD should tell you it's a good thing for the rest of us.
Post a Comment