Sunday, April 18, 2010

Amendment 4 will be true democracy, so it says in the Miami Herald letters' section.

Good letter by John Cunningham in the shitty Miami Herald today:

You might think some humility is in order after our political leaders crashed our economy with overbuilding. How many thousands of vacant residential and commercial units are here in Miami-Dade County? I just read 16 percent of all homes are in foreclosure here.

But developers want to keep busting through the Urban Development Boundary to build more empty units in the swamp. They will pretty much say anything to trick voters. The April 12 Business Monday column by Stanley Price, Amendment 4 will invite state of economic chaos, demonstrates my point. Economic chaos? We already have economic chaos because our local politicians can't say no to developers. Those of us who live in the areas where services are already provided for new construction end up paying for sprawling new developments.

Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 will give voters control:

Incredibly, commissions around Florida have already designated enough land for building to quintuple our population from today's 18 million to 100 million. Price claims that St. Petersburg Beach tried to implement the provisions of Amendment 4, and it didn't work. St. Pete Beach didn't follow the Amendment 4 process at all, and that's why it got in trouble.

Price further claims that the issues voters will be asked to decide will be too complicated for voters to understand. In fact, the issues voters will be asked to decide will be simple enough for anyone to understand; for example, should a particular tract of land be changed from agricultural to residential designation or should a Wal-Mart be allowed in a particular neighborhood?

When Amendment 4 passes, speculators who insist on building outside the already-approved development areas will face a vote of the people. The vote is simply an add-on to the existing process: Your local planners and commissioners will study and vote on a proposed comprehensive land-use plan change as usual. But at the end, local voters will veto or approve their commission's decision in the next scheduled election. No special elections are needed.

If developers choose to build in already approved development areas, there's no vote. There's only a vote if someone wants to build outside the already-approved areas.


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Amen. The development/Chamber communities refuse to accept any responsibility for the mess they have created. I don't think the people can do worse. To suggest FHD will lead to economic and unemployment disaster is beyond insanity; how's the current system working for you now?

Anonymous said...

Amendment 4 can definitely help real estate in Florida. Existing properties will be more valuable. People will do more infill development.

If Stanley Price is opposed to Amendment 4 than Amendment 4 needs to pass. Stanley Price can be considered the contrary indicator.

Anonymous said...

There is also a vote when any change to a comp plan is made, such as to promote public transportation, or mixed use, or affordable housing, or green and sustainable policies, or historic preservation, or job creation, etc. If you think those will be an easy sell to the uneducated majority voters, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. But if you're a nay-sayer who wants to politicize every planning issue, by all means vote for Amendment 4.

Anonymous said...

No incorrect. voting on LAND USE only. Misinformation above

Anonymous said...

There is plenty of unused and vacant land zoned appropriately right now. No one needs to build " west" and no one needs to invade the Everglades to create more unneeded stores and housing.

Think of the tens of thousands of vacant lots close to downtowns? Imagine those lots being developed and how they could reduce peoples commute times?

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget the blighted areas in Dade County both residential & Commercial that could
blossom with activity. The infra-
structure is in, water & sewer is
old & antique, but the roads are there. I can think of my roots growing up in Allapatta, 36 street
from 37 Ave to Biscayne Blvd and north to and past Opa Locka easter-
ly to North Miami. It would be a
stimulus to that area and an enhancement for jobs needed.

County Planners, developers "THINK
INFILL"

Riley

Anonymous said...

Just because your cult of victimhood leader says Amendment 4 will only affect "land use" changes, doesn't mean the Florida Supreme Court agrees with her, and last time I checked they disagree, and they win.

Lee Allen said...

Don't agree with anonymous's tone but he/she is correct: The Supreme Court of Florida has already basically defined the scope of Amendment 4 in reviewing the petition.

The conclusion was that every change to a local government comprehensive plan would require a vote. That includes plenty of technical changes to very boring things such as whether a road is constructed in 2013 or 2014.

Everyone focuses on the big changes but they are the distinct minority -- by a long shot.

And guess what, many changes to permit infill development require . . . comprehensive plan changes!

One thing everyone needs to keep in mind that most comprehensive plans were hurriedly put together in the late 1980s and certainly are not paragons of planning perfection. Frankly, most of them encourage typical sprawl development.

I know the typical response is "It is a start." The passage of Amendment 4 will be, in my opinion, the end of planning in Florida. Does anyone doubt what the geniuses in Tallahassee will do if the Amendment passes? How does removing the requirement for local government comprehensive plans and the shuttering of DCA strike you?

sparky said...

The passage of Amendment 4 will be, in my opinion, the end of planning in Florida.

point taken, but it seems to me that this assumes the status quo is actually planning as that term is understood elsewhere. it's hard (for me at any rate) to see how the current system is really planning in a substantive sense (as distinct from a procedural one).

the point about the DCA also may be valid but since the Rs have been trying to gut it already, it's not a concern that should carry much weight. the real question for me is whether the R party will try to enact a free-for-all once it loses its grip on the statehouse.