Why does Sweetwater want to annex Thousands of acres of wetlands? There is no reason to annex this. There are no City services required for wetlands. There is a little corner owned by Target Stores. Half of Target's property is within the Urban Development Boundary. Most of the land you see here is OUTSIDE the line. Is the proposed Target Store the only thing that is motivating this annexation of thousands of acres of wetlands all the way out to Krome Avenue?
This application for Annexation will be heard May 28th in Sweetwater. We should all care. This is mostly publicly owned land:
 |
| Larger landowners in the proposed annexation area. |
17 comments:
I care. They only want to collect taxs from business owners and provide NO service in return. The reason they are doing this in a commerical area is exactly that---they do not have to provide anything!!!
People standup for you rights--remember : No taxation without representation!!!
They do it, because they can.
Since when does Sweetwater exist past the Turnpike?
Oh and this is all a squeeze on land that will revert to Sweetwater and then move into developers hands. Remember, the MDX extension is right there.
To the anon mentioning MDX- Bingo!
It seems to be the preferred pathway to development in South Florida these days: shooting ranges, all-terrain vehicle parks and expressway extensions; per today’s Palm Beach Post. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/county-approves-26-million-sale-of-site-once-meant/nXyfn/
Don't forget the biggest: rock mines.
to Anon re Palm Beach Post article, this was a good thing -- a sale of land previously slated for development to the Water Management District mainly for purposes of restoration. The shooting range was just a bonus.
As for the annexation, I imagine the miners will definitely have something to say about this.
How good governance is defined today, no respect for earth because they don't have access to data on how much we depend on it, yet they are the smartest when it comes to greedy governance.
Under state statutes (Ch. 171), this annexation would be illegal. Check the case law.
The attached Class IV permit application requests after-the-fact authorization for the dredging and filling of 81.0 acres of wetlands and authorization for the proposed dredging and filling of 15.04 acres of wetlands not supporting halophytic (salt tolerant) vegetation for an agricultural operation. This project is coming before the Board because Chapter 24-48 of the Code requires Board approval for the issuance of Class IV permits to dredge and fill more than 10 acres of wetlands outside the Urban Development Boundary. The proposed project site is outside the Urban Development Boundary and adjacent to wetland properties to the north, south and west, and State Road 836 Extension to the east. A site diagram is included in Attachment A
On June 7, 1985, Class IV Permit CC-898 was issued to Osprey Services for the agricultural rockplowing of 240 acres of wetlands west of NW 137 Avenue between NW 6 Street and NW 9 Lane in Miami, Florida. On February 27, 1987, a new Class IV permit was issued that reaffirmed the agricultural rockplowing and approved filling for an access road. When this permit expired on February 27, 1989, only 84.35 acres had been placed into agricultural production. In subsequent years, the property owner placed another 81.0 acres of wetlands into
agricultural production without obtaining a new Class IV permit. Following issuance of a Notice of Violation and progressive enforcement action on the part of the Department, the property owner has agreed to resolve the outstanding violation through obtaining an after-the-fact permit.
The wetlands proposed to be impacted within the project site are historically characterized as herbaceous prairie. The site contains areas of native wetland prairie with minimal impacts from Melaleuca, an invasive exotic plant species. Compensatory mitigation for the ecological impacts related to the loss of wetland functions will be accomplished by enhancing 47.5 acres of wetlands between the widely spaced planted rows, and preserving and enhancing 23.1 acres of wetlands on-site.
The onsite preservation and enhancement will consist of treatment and removal of exotic vegetation and the recording of a restrictive covenant for the long term preservation of the 23.1 acre area. The 47.5 acres enhancement area will be covered by a second restrictive covenant preserving the existing site layout for agriculture to ensure impacts will be minimized. The covenant will remain in effect until the subject agricultural operations cease and the area is restored or a subsequent Class IV permit is approved for a modification to on-site conditions.
The proposed project has been designed in accordance with all relevant Miami-Dade County Class IV permit criteria and is consistent with all other Miami-Dade County wetland protection provisions. Please find attached a Project Report from the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources which sets forth in more detail the reasons this project is recommended for approval by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources pursuant to the applicable evaluation factors set forth in Section 24-48.3 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The conditions, limitations, and restrictions set forth in the Project Report attached hereto are incorporated herein by reference hereto.
I looked at 171. Which part are you referring to that is a long chapter.
My daily drive includes 137 Ave. and 836. Besides the SR836 proposed extension, there are acres north of 836 being cleared and filled in for warehouse and light industrial use.
There have been numerous Supreme Court pronouncements furnishing guides to determine whether lands should be excluded from a municipality because of lack of benefits. Thus it has been declared that in order to annex or include large areas of lands within the limits of a municipality, there must be a present showing of population, industrialization, or similar reason. State ex rel. Ervin v. City of Oakland Park, Fla.1949, 42 So.2d 270. It has also been declared, where lands annexed by a municipality are unbenefited agricultural lands or are wild, unoccupied, unimproved, and unfit for urban use, and so remote from a municipality that they can receive no benefits, they should not be included within the municipal limits. City of Winter Park v. State, 1935, 119 Fla. 343, 161 So. 386; State ex rel. Landis v. Town of Boca Raton, 1937, 129 Fla. 673, 177 So. 293; and Gillete v. City of Tampa, Fla.1952, 57 So.2d 27.
Chapters 10760 and 10761, Sp. Acts of 1925, were held unconstitutional and void in State ex rel. Davis v. City of Largo, and the city was ousted as to certain lands therein described on the theory that said lands were separated from the city by navigable waters or were wild, unoccupied, unimproved, and for such reasons were not susceptible to municipal improvement. There is no basis on which lands can be brought into a municipality when they are not amenable to municipal benefits and this Court has frequently relieved against taxes for municipal purposes when this is the case. City of Sarasota v. Skillin et al., 130 Fla. 155
Richmond v Town of Largo, 155 Fla. 226 Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.
Same strategy as Homestead. Annex to cover current bills. Essentially, kicking the current debt a few years down the road.
Is the City of Miami still planning on annexing the areas around it? A few years back Commissioner Willy Gort had said the city was looking at annexing the Palmer Lake are near the new Miami Central Station.
Now there are rumors the city is looking to annex the Coral Terrace, Westchester and University Park areas (around FIU). Any word on this? I'd love to read more about the City of Miami's annexation plans.
I want you both to come back in one piece.
Post a Comment