The following is a press release from Florida Hometown Democracy: Congratulations to Susan Woods & Karen Recio, the “lawyer-less” ladies of Marion County who objected to Marion County’s rubberstamping of yet another developer’s comprehensive plan change and won…for now. Both the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the judge agreed with the ladies that the plan change violates the state growth management law because there is no “need” for another 800 homes on a horse ranch when Marion County has enough housing on the books for the next 45 years. But Marion County officials and the developer would not take NO for an answer. They “appealed” to the governor and cabinet, with a little help from the Florida Chamber of Commerce. Happily, the Governor and Cabinet unanimously rejected the “appeal”. But even after all this it may still not be over:
According to the Associated Press:
Hometown Democracy co-founder Ross Burnaman watched from a front-row seat. He later said the decision did not disprove a need for the amendment [Hometown Democracy Amendment 4] to rein in rampant development and sprawl.
"They had to go through 2 1/2 years of hell, and then fight off the development mafia that made a last-minute run to overturn their victory," Burnaman said. "Does that sound like it [the current growth management system] works?"
It also may not be a lasting victory. Linda Shelley, one of Pelham's predecessors who appeared on behalf of the property owners, urged the panel to delay action to give Marion County a chance to revise its need provision.
That would be like changing the rules after the game has started, Pelham said, but he acknowledged the landowners could try again if that happens.
Yes, it ain’t over until Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 is in the Florida Constitution!
PalmBeachDailyNews.com
Amendment 4 a much-needed reality check on development
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Until recently many conservationists doubted the efficacy of Amendment 4, [Hometown Democracy] owing to its potential to make existing permitting processes even more cumbersome and costly.
What we expected was reasonable compliance with rational comprehensive growth management plans for sustainable development, under the Growth Management Act. What we got was multiple deviations, with the imposition of multiple taxes, great profits for developers and little growth management realized.
That was then. Now there is a developer push to severely limit or do away with impact fees, and a legislative threat to eliminate the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Now, with a glut of empty houses and condos, is a lobbying effort to do away with the growth management requirement for justifying growth.
For those who understand the hidden costs to society and the resulting increased tax liability, this is the last straw.
The FDCA is the state agency that provides a reality check on developments run amuck, literally. By paving over paradise, there is an impact of uncalculated external costs to society, also known in economics as externalities, hence the need for impact fees. The reality check needed here is the calculation of all externalities' cost to the taxpayer.
Development externalities include all manner of infrastructure and services needed to support the proposed development and increased population: Schools, roads, fire and police, medical emergency services, garbage pick-up and landfills, sewers and waste treatment, and more government to handle this, and especially a viable water supply.
Another externality is the loss of property values across the board, caused by overdevelopment and increase in taxes per the aforementioned infrastructure and services, which the bureaucracy is finding not only hard to give up but in need of more. Hence nickel-and-dime taxes as a result in the news recently.
On the externality of water supply: For the snowbirds, here is a recognizable case study to compare what happened in New York City to what has happened in Florida, as another reality check.
To upgrade its water supply, New York City opted to restore the Catskills watershed at a cost of about $1 billion, as opposed to spending up to $8 billion on water plant construction and operation.
In South Florida, paving over paradise, by dredge and fill destruction of wetlands, has reduced our watersheds. This takes the cost of water supply for Florida residents in the opposite direction taken by New York. As the Everglades watershed has diminished, the effect is a local call for deeper drilling in the Floridan aquifer, reverse osmosis and desalination, all at a very high cost, when the New York remedy is available.
Guess what? The cost of reverse osmosis and desalination is six to eight times the cost of natural water supply. This is the same benefit-to-cost calculus that persuaded New York to opt for the low-tech, low-cost, low-risk attributes of the natural system.
Call our New York remedy the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, to restore a major part of Florida's natural watershed, at six to eight times the benefit, compared to high-tech, high-cost water supply methods, that also require more electricity.
The late Art Marshall provided this reality check in a 1981 news article: In Florida it has always been said that if we can just get a bigger population, we'll get more business and more dollars and it will solve all our problems. That's a bunch of crap. It doesn't work that way. Please observe that things have gotten much worse since 1981, with a lot more crap.
Now guess why the externalities are never mentioned. A salient quote: Success of the Growth Machine in Florida depended on the public not receiving information. Amendment 4 advocates are now the informed, but they are not the radicals. What development has done is to transform a natural asset to societal liability, with significant reduction of quality of life for all Floridians. As a recent editorial noted, "Unchecked growth is an unsustainable extreme."
In the quest for an approach to nearly unconstrained development at great cost to the taxpayers, Amendment 4 is the unintended consequence. Consider another externality: The developers' cost of political contributions to keep this tax debt spiral going.
Now, can anybody not understand why utilities are calling for increased rates to cover the cost of new infrastructure to meet increased demands, and for conservation of water and energy? ... And why the two are related?
For the long-term, big-picture thinkers, there is one more externality that portends significant costs to society: Global climate change and sea-level rise, accelerated by the loss of wetlands and more fossil fuel usage, with carbon emissions. Here the "unsustainable" word is appropriate. Needed reality checks are way past due.
As a final reality check, please have a read of Paving Paradise — Florida's Vanishing Wetlands and the Failure of No Net Loss. This may move rational folks to go beyond just voting for Amendment 4, to campaign for a much-needed reality check. Can we say taxation without representation?
With "4" there is a chance of representation and restoring the process of democracy. Without "4," past history and current events tell us nothing will change for the better.
JOHN ARTHUR MARSHALL
Donate today to support FHD!
11 comments:
Upholding integrity in growth laws
The Tampa Tribune
Gov. Charlie Crist and the Cabinet correctly defended the state's growth management laws in a crucial ruling last week that also reminds all communities of their duty to protect the general public.
At issue was whether Marion County should be allowed to amend its blueprint for growth - the comprehensive land-use plan - to allow a nearly 800-home subdivision on about 400 acres in the heart of horse country.
At first, state Department of Community Affairs planners erred in signing off on the amendment, which had been approved by Marion commissioners against the recommendation of county planners.
But the state acknowledged its mistake and properly reversed itself after a challenge by two concerned residents who fought to preserve their rural quality of life - a spirit that should give hope to other residents who are sick of sprawl and want growth management laws followed.
The primary issue, as decided by an administrative law judge, is need. The judge ruled officials had not demonstrated that the residential market needed more housing in that part of Marion - where, under the land-use plan, steps already had been taken to allow 7,500 more homes.
The ruling led to a rare land-use appeal before Crist and Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, Attorney General Bill McCollum and Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Charles Bronson. At the urging of DCA Secretary Tom Pelham, and despite pressure from the development lobby, they upheld the ruling.
The decision reinforces sound growth management at a critical time. Communities are being inundated with developer-backed land-use amendments, and governments are rushing to get state approval ahead of the controversial Hometown Democracy amendment set for a vote in November 2010. Should Hometown Democracy, also known as Amendment 4, pass, voters would have the final say on any amendment approved by local governments.
Had Crist and the Cabinet sided with Marion County and the developers, it would have opened floodgates that could have proven disastrous for growth management in Florida, where development interests have been getting most of what they want at local and state levels.
This is where the "demonstrated need" test comes in. Under state administrative rules addressing land-use amendments, local governments, as well as the Department of Community Affairs, must show the need for the project over a specified planning period.
Such an assessment, which includes population projections and how much land will be needed to accommodate future residents, is fundamental to proper growth management. It's an effective tool to curb or stop suburban sprawl, which has resulted in crowded schools, congested roads and other headaches throughout the state.
Judging by the tens of thousands of homes approved for construction in Hillsborough and Pasco counties but not yet built, as well as the surplus of empty houses, we wonder whether local officials have been giving adequate consideration to this requirement.
Need should be a part of any major land-use decision. Approving development willy-nilly can undermine property values elsewhere and quickly change the character of a community.
Even during this down economy and with unemployment high, it is not the job of local and state governments to ignore rules in an attempt to help builders and developers make profits and create jobs. Pushing growth at any cost is an economic model that leads to costly busts and disgruntled taxpayers. Look at the state's housing market - and your property values - today.
Fortunately, the decision by Crist and the Cabinet keeps the "demonstrated need" test as an important part of the continuing debate over growth management in Florida. Making better use of this rule will help balance what developers want with what the community actually needs and can support.
During decades of involvement with zoning and land-use in Dade County, I have never seen the "needs test" applied to CDMP changes other than applications to move the UDB. Even then the county does not take into account the need to build more residential/commercial. They simply say, "we have or do not have enough vacant land". If the needs test had been used, we would not have the surplus housing that exists today. East Homestead is a perfect example; the conversion of farmland to houses would never passed muster. Maybe someone should teach the commission about the "needs test".
Yea. The commission needs test: I need money to be re-elected.
LOL. That is funny and true
This is a perfect example of how the system DOES work. These ladies won the entire way - the developers were behind from day one. And Pelham seems like a pretty level-headed guy.
We don't need Hometown Democracy; that's killing a fly with a howitzer. We just need smart elected officials, like these. It is good to see that Florida DOES have a few - THANK GOD!
Congrats to the LawyerlessLadies! Finally here's one in the WIN column for us.
There are more flies in the development industry than we can catch. We need Amendment 4 to pass or we won't have a safety net.
Last anonymous the ladies didn't win yet. Right at this very minute the county is going to challenge the LOWE'S that lost at the cabinet level..these damn developers never give up. So don't you dare say on this blog the FHD isn't needed...until you follow the Lowes story...
The residents rarely win in the state administrative law court unless they are on the same side as the state. The state always wins. There is not a level field in AdMin court. Why did the cabinet vote against this project? Because Pelham warned them if they approved the project it would make more people vote for FHD. Can you figure out what the result would have been if there was no threat of FHD?
Now these ladies are faced with an expensive court battle. Clearly they will have to get an attorney. I hope the state joins with them. Any dimwit that says FHD is not necessary has never been put through the meat grinder of state court. I've been there.
The anon who said that the victory shows that good elected officials (at the state level) obviate the need for FHD neglects or does not understand that the recent passage of SB 360 and signing by (I'll do anything to get elected) Gov. Charlie Crist could completely eliminate the appeal to the Gov and Cabinet step, where the good ladies prevailed. The system is crooked from start to finish. For Four!
Those who are against DCA, who want decisions made on a local level - I will agree with the local level part. Let's ask the taxpayer, shall we? That's pretty local. Yes for 4.
Amendment 4 is not needed.
Post a Comment