Tuesday, September 28, 2010

New York Times Front Page A1: Amendment 4, Florida Hometown Democracy ... by gimleteye

Finally. Amendment 4 on the November ballot, appears on Page 1 of The New York Times. It's a well-written article by Times bureau chief, for a few more weeks, Damien Cave. The constitutional amendment to require local vote of changes to local comprehensive development plans will break the pattern of rubber-stamp approvals that substantially contributed to the biggest real estate crash since the Great Depression. Read the NY Times report here or click, more:

Florida Voters Enter Battle on Growth


Published: September 27, 2010

[photo]
Michael McElroy for The New York Times
A empty home in Tesoro, a private golf club and residential community in Port St. Lucie. Voters will have a say in future growth in every county and municipality in a referendum in November.

By DAMIEN CAVE

BOYNTON BEACH, Fla. Lesley Blackner drove through a maze of condominium towers, rarely seeing any curtains in the windows, or residents, and tried to contain her anger.

Enlarge This Image


Michael McElroy for The New York Times

At the Promenade, two 14-story luxury buildings in Boynton Beach, the 318 condominium units and 20,000 square feet of street-level retail and restaurant space are sitting virtually empty.

“They’ve crammed as much as they can in here,” she said this month, noting that just a few years ago cows grazed on the land west of I-95. “The people around here didn’t want it they objected. But the City Commission did it anyway.”

Even now, with about 300,000 residential units sitting empty around the state, the push to build continues. Since 2007, local governments have approved zoning and other land use changes that would add 550,000 residential units and 1.4 billion square feet of commercial space, state figures show.

So for Ms. Blackner, a Palm Beach lawyer with a Mercedes full of paperwork, the real estate crisis is not just the fault of Wall Street, Washington or misguided borrowers; it is also the back-scratching bond between elected officials and builders a common source of frustration in weak real estate markets around the country wherever developers are still fighting to add more housing.

In Florida, at least, Ms. Blackner hopes to put an end to the chronic oversupply with a ballot initiative she has labeled “Hometown Democracy.”

Amendment 4, as it is officially called, would give Floridians a vote on changes to state-mandated plans for growth in every county and municipality. Much of the potential impact of the measure is up for debate, with important details most likely to be decided by the courts.

But if it is added to the state’s Constitution which would require 60 percent approval on Election Day critics and supporters envision revolutionary change.

Leaders of the Yes on 4 campaign, including Ms. Blackner, say it would end a culture of freewheeling development that began when Hamilton Disston started dredging Florida swamps in the 1880s. Critics, led by chambers of commerce, say the measure would lead to lost jobs, chaos and expensive court battles.

Either way, the referendum is bringing into sharp relief the conflict surrounding real estate nationwide: while new homes, growth and the American dream are forever intertwined, many people are questioning why development often overwhelms other public priorities, even after it led to an economic crisis.

“Most planning advocates would love to have the structure we have in Florida, but most Floridians know that the structure doesn’t work,” said Michael Allan Wolf, a University of Florida law professor. “Amendment 4 suggests that, on the ground, this system is really broken.”

This is not an even fight. Ms. Blackner’s group has raised $2.4 million (with $800,000 from her own pocket), but most of it was spent on getting on the ballot.

The No on 4 campaign has raised nearly $12 million through a series of political action committees enough for a glossy Web site, consultants and plenty of airtime. The Florida Association of Realtors is its largest single contributor, giving more than $2.3 million.

The nation’s biggest homebuilders, after receiving a multibillion-dollar bailout from Congress this year, have also been quite generous. Altogether, Lennar Homes, KB Home and Pulte Homes gave more than $1 million to No on 4’s main political action committee, Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy.

Ryan Houck, a spokesman for the group, said that developers were not the only opponents of the amendment, which he described as “overreaching and extreme.” The contributors’ list also includes community farm bureaus, which worry that it would make it harder to sell and rezone agricultural land for other uses.

Some county planners are also concerned about potential costs to government. “The litigation that ensues, no matter what happens, is really the potential fly in the ointment,” said Mark Satterlee, planning and development director for St. Lucie County.

Amendment 4 leaves open to interpretation whether every proposed change to a community’s development plan would need to appear on future ballots. In a sign of possible litigation to come, lawyers favoring the measure say that it would cover only major land use changes and that related proposals could be combined for votes by commissions.

Opponents say that under Amendment 4, each tweak of a development plan which every county and municipality must have in place under a state law passed in the mid-1980s, and which requires updating every seven years would have to appear on the ballot. Voters, they say, would have hundreds of items to digest each year.

That is not the typical situation. Annual figures from a half-dozen Florida counties and several fast-growing cities suggest that most voters in most years would decide on no more than 20 changes, usually fewer. (The No on 4 Web site says that the small town of Carrabelle would have had 617 proposed changes on its 2006 ballot under such a law, but records and interviews show only a handful of changes proposed that year.)

(Page 2 of 2)

A more serious issue may be whether the ballot items, which are limited to 75 words or less, would lead to advertising campaigns, followed by misunderstandings and lawsuits. Larger development changes cover complicated issues including water supply and transportation, often with hundreds of pages of material. “Sometimes we take a hand truck to carry boxes down to the commissioners,” said Rick Burris, principal planner for Lee County.

However, Mr. Burris added, plan change approvals were not required for building. While developers claim that Amendment 4 would make construction impossible, current community plans around the state actually include robust expansion.

A rural area like Jackson County has room for 996 years of residential growth at current rates, according to a 2009 state analysis. Charlotte County has 162 years of growth in its plan, while St. Lucie County has the capacity to house its growing population for the next 212 years.

And that is what gets Ms. Blackner really fuming. “They could build until hell freezes over,” she said during a daylong tour of failed developments. “This isn’t about building. It’s about control.”

She drove past a row of empty condos on Route 1 called the Preserve, then past commercial and residential space, all vacant concrete floors and for-rent signs; then more examples of what she called the political class’s addiction to the next deal apartment towers with few occupants, several stories higher than the plans’ original limits.

Finally she arrived at Tesoro, a golf community in the City of Port St. Lucie with a $48 million San Simeon-like clubhouse. The city’s mayor resigned and was arrested last Wednesday, on charges of pocketing campaign contributions, including money from developers. Tesoro former scrub brush is now an eerie ghost town of minicastles with fewer than 100 residents.

“This is bubble grandeur,” Ms. Blackner said, noting that Port St. Lucie’s taxpayers were left to pay for a new firehouse in the development.

“The commissioners were supposed to be protecting the community,” she said. “That’s their job, and they were asleep at the switch.”

Catharine Skipp contributed reporting.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

What do you mean CAVE is leaving? Where is he going. The article was very well written, and I hope many people start understanding what is at state. Developers wouldn't be spending milllions for nothing. They are afraid of the public.

Gimleteye said...

My understanding, he is going to the Mexico bureau.

Lee Allen said...

I am surprised that there has no been mention of Katy Sorenson's editorial in the Herald coming out against Amendment 4.

As someone who values good planning in this state, it was refreshing to hear the Commissioner explain why the Amendment would be counterproductive. In fact, I have raised many of the same concerns here, only to be accused of being a "plant."

Taking a pro Amendment 4 stance would be the easy political choice for Katy. It is heartening to see a politician taking a position based on her considered understanding of an issue rather than politics.

Hopefully her replacement will be as clear thinking.

Anonymous said...

The main proponents of Amendment 4 are special interest lawyers who will benefit from its passing.

The cost for our already cash poor local government would be sky high.

Geniusofdespair said...

That is so untrue it is ridiculous - you get my putz designation: not worthy of an answer.

Anonymous said...

The interesting thing about the Times story is that they too can't distinguish between land use and zoning.

It can be difficult to differentiate, but it is an important thing to understand.

People who are all pro-4 will be in for a rude awakening when zoning still chuggs along like nothing happened. There's at least 15 years worth of scheduled growth within the urban service boundary for starters. In addition, it doesn't prevent an area designated for businesses to sprout a condo in certain land use categories. It doesn't prevent the conversion of farms already in the Master Plan into something else (which is the case for everything inside the UDB except for horse country).

I think most people are pinning their hopes on something that aint gonna happen even if it passes.

Anonymous said...

Excellent article. Hopefully people will educate themselves and see that only developers and real estate folks are against Amendment 4. They are the ones who got us in this mess and they just want to continue down the road of urban sprawl by paving over the whats left of our natural areas. Why don't all you developers pack up and move to Haiti, there is plenty of work for you there. At least you'll be welcomed with open arms there.

Anonymous said...

I am shocked at Katy Sorenson's position on Amendment 4(Mia. Herald 9-26-10). For her to think we should start by getting the voting public involved by actually showing up at the polls and voting competent people in office is like waiting for the Marlins to finance their own their own stadium, it ain't going to happen. With a 20% turnout at the polls we can't seem to motivate enough people to voice their opinions. It's our own fault. Our only choice is pass Amendment 4 and go from there. Hell, we can't even get enough good people to run as Sorenson suggest so how do you think you would get them to turn out and vote. Go ahead and sit back on your laurels, we get what we deserve.

Anonymous said...

This blog's misguided obsession with this issue has caused me to turn away. I agree with you guys on almost everything, but you have this one wrong.

Anonymous said...

Whats wrong with us(taxpayers) wanting to control our destiny? This is the most important issue you will ever vote on and you need to educate yourself on it's importance. Florida is like an island out to sea and there is only so much room before it becomes an unbearable and toxic place to live. This is a control issue. Given the decades of already approved development in county master plans across the state our economic engine is set to chug along just fine. It's time for the citizens to have a say and be heard before realators, developers and politicans take whats left.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't really matter, because if this thing passes then the legislature will just repeal all the entire growth management chapter in the Florida Statutes and the amendment will be a moot point.

Geniusofdespair said...

You can't legislate out of a constitutional amendment.