This Op-Ed is written by a close friend, and someone I respect on this subject:
Proposed land-use law would be huge mistake
By RICHARD GROSSO -grossor@nsu.law.nova.edu
Florida is threatened by the growth-management bills our Legislature is about to approve. Their passage would be one the greatest mistakes in our history. The rhetoric supporting a drastic dismantling of the state’s ability to manage its growth and the specifics of the proposals are tragically flawed.
The current glut of vacant homes and offices, and of approved, unbuilt development, happened under current law. Some say this development was approved in the wrong places, but the market, to which some now want to hand over the job of looking out for the interests of the state, sought those approvals. The Legislature should not make things worse for those who cannot sell their homes or rent their office space by making the approval of new development easier. Developers won’t be building much anytime soon, but are taking this opportunity to position themselves well, at the state’s expense, for their future.
Managing growth is smart economics in a state whose lifeblood is tourism and that has a unique environment and quality of life. We are in an era where smart heads of families and businesses are looking for those things and a good education system. Development is heavily subsidized by existing residents and taxpayers who pay for most of the roads, schools, fire stations and other things we must provide to new development. The ability to make sure that this development goes where it makes sense for the state must come with that subsidy. Florida is a low-tax state where almost everybody wants to live, work or vacation. We should not give Florida away for free. (Press read more...)
The proposed dismantling of the state planning agency is ill-conceived. The size of the agency’s budget, compared to the importance and impact of planning decisions on everything from economy, education, crime, the environment and other issues is small. The limitation of the state’s role to matters of “statewide importance” is completely undefined and will create widespread confusion about what decisions are subject to state review, taking us back to the “every community for itself” situation that gave rise to this law in the first place.
The “local control” argument for repealing state oversight of most planning decisions ignores the reality that many local planning decisions affect more than one community. One of the main reasons the act was originally adopted was to stop the practice of one local government approving revenue-creating projects in locations that left neighboring communities holding the bag of traffic, pollution or neighborhood impacts.
Also important is the number of local officials now charged with or serving time for selling their development votes. That many local governments now have planning programs doesn’t justify removing the state’s role. It doesn’t take many developments in the wrong place to create huge problems in an entire region. With the prevailing budget scenarios, smaller local governments with few planning resources will essentially be at the mercy of sophisticated developers with their teams of professional consultants.
The bills would encourage — or mandate — the approval of massive new towns in the middle of remote areas, but requirements for set-asides of natural or farm lands are nonexistent or completely vague. The public would be required to subsidize these new towns, at the expense of existing towns, and without the significant permanent preservation of important lands that the supporters of these projects claim as their benefit.
Large, rural projects could be approved without the need for a land use plan change, and disputes over them would be moved from administrative hearings (whose judges are well-versed in planning law) to the circuit-court system (where most trial judges are not). Weakening the act’s urban sprawl provisions will devastate farms and forests, rivers and lakes. Weakening the requirement for developers to pay for their impact on schools, roads and parks will be felt by all existing taxpayers.
The bills put the responsibility to enforce what remains of planning law on local residents, but makes it unrealistic for citizens to enforce the law — placing upon them the burden of proving a lack of any “fair debate” as to whether a land use approval complies with this now impossibly vague law.
Once approved, development decisions can almost never be undone. We stand on the verge of allowing the special places in our state to be permanently lost.
Richard Grosso teaches land use and environmental law and directs the Environmental and Land Use Law Clinic at Nova Southeastern University.
No comments:
Post a Comment