The staff is recommending an adjustment (contraction) of the UEAs in order for them to come into compliance with the policies now in the CDMP. While being inside the UEA still requires a UDB amendment, it makes it one step easier since the CDMP gives preference to land inside the UEA for UDB expansion.
The Commission just needs a simple majority to change the land use map. This is a land use map change. It will be a majority vote.
I DO NOT WANT THE UEA PAB RECOMMENDED ADDITION - NO WAY! They don't know what they are doing on the PAB. Just ignore them, they were swooned into a trance by the lobbyist Jeffrey Bercow.
You three Commissioners appear to be the swing vote. Swing our way please! If you add that property in the blue box (see map below) to the UEA, you will be very sorry it makes the UDB change much easier. If you think traffic is bad now, just wait--there is a development of regional impact called Parkland that just happens to fit in that blue box.. Your vote for the PAB plan would open a door that will cripple our growth management. I can give you a hundred other reasons not to do it...but I am so tired of this same fight. You have a choice, you can kiss Lennar's ass and do it or you can all do the right thing. I have given up on a lot of the Commissioners (Bell, Diaz, Barreiro, Souto, Jordan and Bovo), I have hope for others (Heyman, Moss, Monestime, Edmonson). But you three: I worry about on this issue. I hope you come through.
 |
| Get that blue box off this map!!!! If the Commission approves this map that the PAB put forth, this UEA would go from SW 66th Street, down to SW 152nd Street and make it easier for developments such as Green City and Parkland to request a recommendation for inclusion into the UDB. |
 |
| To read the letter easier hit on it and will enlarge. |
11 comments:
This is the direct result of electing Gov. Rick Scott who gutted growth management.
Juan, help us out.
So they are contracting (errr screwing the landowners in the northern UEA area), so they can bring Parkland in to the UEA?
M
The short answer: yes.
They are shrinking the UEA at the top portion because it runs through a wellfield! (This is the Northwest Wellfield, which has the highest capacity. We draw about 104 Million Gallons of water/day from this wellfield, and it has a capacity of holding another 100million Gal. or so. A very, very important resource we should protect, desalinization will make cost of water be 10X more!). The reasons for shrinking the UEAs (all 4 of them) is to match them to the Policy LU-8G which says to exempt areas from UEAs denominated either (1) future wetlands; (2) lands designated for agriculture, (3) hurricane evacuation areas, and (4) lands that are part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).
The particular portion deleted by County Staff had most of those 4 components of the policy: CERP project footprint, future wetlands for CERP projects and water management areas, it acts as Everglades buffer and it has that wellfield running through the top portion of it. Staff is correcting the maps so that those areas are exempted from being considered to be included into the UDB in the future.
What happened at the PAB meeting is that once Staff presented the new amended UEAs two developers made the case that because they were shrinking the areas too much, that maybe they could add some more down south... ejem.. ejem.. Parkland.
So in essence, while Planning and Zoning Staff spent time and resources gathering data to better draw a Land-Use map that matches the policy we have in place protecting the community's resources, the PAB threw that off the window and decided that "it makes sense" to add that big chunk of land down south to be included into the UEA because "poor land speculator, let's give him some land." Mind you, this person has not paid the fine and gone through the application process but it is claiming to change a map to benefit him, and him only! Why should we accommodate special requests? The permitting process was put in place to be able to analyze and consider everything that’s at stake: economic growth of the County, demand, and the protection of valuable natural resources for the people that reside in the County at the moment. Don’t forget that the more we go out West and away from the County core, the less resources the County will have for you and your family because they’ll be forced to create another municipality, add services, etc. Staff also based these new UEAs based on the projected population numbes, and they show there is no demand right now, so why push it?
Why push it? Because it is Lennar doing the pushing.
I know that Lennar is pushing. But then we, the public, the people, the ones that get screwed by these unnecessary developments, need to walk over to the Commission and remind them that they are representing OUR best interest! Not the developers'.
People need to take time to go to that meeting tomorrow, if you don't speak out the Commissioners will think you don't care, and I am sure you do.. after all, it's your drinking water supply and that of your children.
Think about it, if we have the power to make sound decisions based on data, why are we then letting people be convinced by an illogical argument? It is not fair to the population of Miami-Dade County.
You want to build? Fine, do that project inside the UDB, lift the face of Miami-Dade, reinforce existing communities and then make a buck.
Or, wait until the time to push the boundary comes. We know, based on data, that now is not the time. Also, for those thinking there is some demand from Brazilians/Venezuelans, etc., well, I'll tell you that they are interested in buying everything there is around Brickell. You know why? Because it is a walkable, livable, vibrant place to live. They won't buy a town house in the middle of no where.
I don't feel bad for speculators, that's all they are and they know that when they bought that land it was not guaranteed they would be able to build there. Or are you telling me that when you go to Vegas you expect to win every single time?
How about presenting the available vacant or potentially developable land within the urban areas as a reason to deny! OOPs thats not in the county suburbs or jurisdiction$$$$$$
Good news... Here is a recap:
Moss voted no since he is worried about doing anything with UDB and UEA. Bell and pepe were clearly inclined to tinker with UEA lines. Badly they were the worst. Sosa, Edmunson and Monestine's pretty clearly against moving UdB and high on infill. Zapata very supportive of staff. And Bovo and Jordan quiet but voted to move staff recommendations NOT PAB recommendations.
More substandard homes in Florida's Everglades.. What a shame.
Whatever happened to the Friends of West Kendall?? The two guys the were the 'Front' for them were very well spoken and knew the subject matter.
Then POOF!
Post a Comment