“Smart growth” is an oxymoron. “Less-stupid growth” would be a better name.~ Ted Turner
To the surprise of many of you, we have very good growth management strategies in Florida. In fact:
Florida’s landmark 1985 Growth Management Act (GMA)
proved to be one of the most far-reaching management acts in the nation, and remains so.We just don’t enforce our growth management very well. To understand today, you have to know a little about the DRY history of yesterday. Really, I mean it. Take Reubin for example, I consider him the father of Growth Management in Florida.
From 1950 to 1980, Florida’s population bloomed from 2.8 million to 11 million residents. Miami-Dade County’s population, alone, grew by 71 percent during that same period. As many as 44 million tourists flocked to the state by 1988. Something needed to be done!
The 70'sA succession of state governors, beginning with Reubin Askew in the early 1970s, began to tackle the negative impacts of the unchecked growth in Florida, such as: pollution, diminishing farm land and natural resources, coastal erosion, escalating costs to provide infrastructure to edge communities. (Hit "read more").
A series of laws passed between 1972 and 1975 mandated a state Comprehensive Plan (remember that: Comprehensive Plan), regional plans and a requirement that all local governments prepare comprehensive plans.
The 1972 Environmental Land and Water Management Act authorized the state’s Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to designate and monitor land use in “areas of critical state concern” and to review and approve plans for “developments of regional impact (DRI).” Lennar has a DRI in the works right now.
Officials divided the state into regional districts that required planning follow specific guidelines; however, the state failed to adopt a meaningful comprehensive plan or to provide funding at local and regional levels for comprehensive plan development. Furthermore, the laws provided for little enforcement and weak review at state and regional levels – an oversight that continues through regulations today.
The seeds of Florida’s land acquisition programs were planted during this time.In 1972, the Land Conservation Act authorized the state to issue bonds to raise as much as $240 million for the purchase of environmentally endangered lands and recreational areas. Seven years later, the state established the Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust to finance the protection of environmentally sensitive lands and to restore natural systems. The Aquatic Preserves Act, created in 1975, approved setting aside a number of water resources for public use “forever.”
As Growth Management Pioneer John De Grove said:
Florida’s effort to manage growth and change…can be summed up as a lot of positive accomplishments, a lot of negative disappointments and a demanding unfinished agenda as we move into the first decade of the new century.
~ Dr. John M. DeGrove, Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1983-85
The 1980s
Greater order came to the comprehensive planning process during the 1980s. Florida’s landmark 1985 Growth Management Act (GMA) proved to be one of the most far-reaching management acts in the nation, and remains so.
Under the leadership of then-Governor Bob Graham, the state appointed the Environmental Land Management Study Committee II (ELMS II) to make recommendations for critical improvements to the state’s growth management laws. According to DeGrove, the legislature adopted almost all of the Committee’s recommendations, except one: “If you aren’t willing to fund it, don’t adopt it.”
The 1985 GMA stipulated the creation of a state comprehensive plan and that the Regional Planning Councils (RPC) would be responsible for employing regional comp plans consistent with the State’s.
All local governments were required to prepare detailed comprehensive plans by 1992 that remained consistent with the goals and policies of both the regional and state plans. These “comp” plans then would be implemented through consistent local land development regulations and land use decisions. The GMA mandated that local governments choose a specific Level of Service (LOS) for water, sewer, solid waste, drainage, conservation, recreation and open space.
The GMA additionally ordered “concurrency,” requiring that facilities and services needed by new development be in place in time to serve that development. Concurrency was designed to 1) make sure that the impact of new development was realistically assessed before it was approved; and 2) eliminate the lag time between the development and the provision of services. Growth was to take place in areas where concurrency existed or could clearly be planned and paid for. (WATER is now part of this requirement.)
The 1985 GMA further improved on the 1972 regulations by including enforcement provisions. Local governments that make land use decisions inconsistent with local, regional and state plans could be held accountable in four ways:
1) The state could withhold grants and other funds from governments that adopt inconsistent plans or amendments;
2) The state could seek an injunction, requiring the local government to act consistently;
3) Affected citizens could challenge land use plan amendments that are inconsistent with local plans through an administrative appeal process; and
4) Affected citizens, through a more limited standing allowance, could challenge inconsistent development orders, including zoning decisions, through an action in court for injunctive or other relief.
Although the GMA reclaimed some of the state’s land use decision-making power, both the legislature and local officials understood that it was not intended to drastically affect local government decision-making but rather guide local land use decisions still with a firm foundation in traditional zoning methods. In other words, as long as local plans did not violate broad state and regional goals, then local governments could choose their own intensity of growth based upon what their communities wanted. The GMA’s intent was to garner broad public input and participation in the land-use decision-making process.
EARs
The GMA also required local governments to file Evaluation and Appraisal Reports (EARs) every few years to assess how they were meeting the requirements set forth in their comp plans. EARs required only minimum criteria with the notion of concurrency as a central element, such as a future land use map and compliance with the various comp plan elements: capital improvements, transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and natural groundwater aquifer recharge, natural resource conservation, recreation and open space, housing, coastal management and intergovernmental coordination. Optional elements included public education, community design, historic preservation, arts and culture, economic development, and, in some cases, a coastal management plan.
History of the Miami-Dade UDB
Since the Urban Development Boundary was created in the early 1980s, commissioners have been reluctant to alter it. It is part of the Miami Dade County Comprehensive Plan.
"The farther west you go in Miami-Dade County, the more environmentally sensitive areas you're going to affect. Extending services west becomes increasingly expensive."
Legal Rulings Concerning the UDB
The courts have upheld the UDB as a sound, legally valid, and demonstrably necessary growth management strategy.
From this very, very long explanation I hope you have gathered that the State, not just this stupid Miami Dade County Commission, has a say in the movement of the Urban Development Boundary, and we as citizens have recourse: We can appeal to the State.
(I have borrowed heavily from a white paper put out a few years ago by the Urban Environment League, Trust for Public Land and Tropical Audubon Society -- I also Bolded what I thought important.) There are probably mistakes in this post, but not many. I welcome corrections.
