Yes it is something I do. Lumping developers together as enemies of the public interest. Sure it is hyperbole: I did it yesterday with anger at news that the developer lobby is interfering with the implementation of the new zoning code for Miami, Miami 21.
I know why land speculators are against regulations that limit the type or density or height of future projects. Speculators want to maximize revenue per square foot. That is the story of the miserable Shops at Sunset, former Bakery Center, that could have been so much more for the community of South Miami if it hadn't been so much more for Greenberg Traurig lobbyists. Or, Route 1 in Florida City, pre and post Hurricane Andrew, for the local Homestead bankers and yo-yo's. These are two, of ten thousand examples in the state of Florida.
It is the same story outside the Urban Development Boundary where every "wish" to rationalize planning in the future runs straight up against some speculator's plan to replicate the model of suburban sprawl based on the eagerness of Wall Street to be agnostic to sprawl and conform debt to demographic averages that will be used by Moody's or Standard & Poors to rate the aggregate debt as Triple A.
I know all developers do not bear the same tar and feathering in the publick square. I do it for a reason. Developers in Florida will not stand forward and criticize their brethren, no matter how egregious the violation of common sense. Two more examples. First: moving the Urban Development Boundary in Miami-Dade. There are big and respected and small and lesser known developers who are against moving the UDB. I know this, because they tell me. But they won't come out and criticize these efforts publicly, because they consider the protagonists to be friends or colleagues; people they have to work with, in other contexts. As a result of the developers' silence, only a few citizens end up carrying the burden of a massive weight: protecting the rest of Miami-Dade from speculators and their sprawl.
The second example is Amendment 4, Florida Hometown Democracy. The citizens' ballot initiative will be voted in November in Florida. It proposes that changes to local development plans go to a public vote, or electors, and not local zoning councils. Many, many developers could care less about changes to local development plans: their business is not involved in building new sprawl, for instance. Amendment 4 does not apply to their business model or practices or costs. Yet, find one developer who will speak in favor of Florida Hometown Democracy. Show a group of developers who are challenging the $15 million war chest being assembled by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the Florida Realtors, and Associated Industries: why not?
So there you have it. As a group, Florida's developers have failed to differentiate their positions from those of the speculators and sprawl boosters. Florida's developers are stuck with elected representatives who believe their marching orders are to destroy regulations and barriers to growth as a matter of political principle, as a matter of "what the market wants", as a matter of property rights. It is the Age of Stupid, and Florida's developers paved the 8 lane highway to its doorstep.
4 comments:
Be careful what you wish for. Miami21 as implemented by Diaz increased density and let developers off the hook in almost all instances. Diaz had no interest in what was best for Miamians, only what was best for him and developers. The only reason developers are now against Miami21 is because MNU asked and got from Regalado some very important changes.
You continue to spread the misinformation that only "bad" development will be stopped or discouraged by Amendment 4.
Many infill projects that the readers of this blog would likely hail as being a good idea will require comprenhensive plan amendments. So, every developer in Florida, even the "good" ones, should opposed Amendment 4.
To the first anon - density isn't a bad thing if done right. I'd rather see a truly mixed area (uses as well as economic) with greater density in the urban core than the constant press of sprawl into the fringe. Density has done well for city centers in the Northeast and Midwest.
And I understand the alure of Amendment 4, but saying that it will somehow intervene in "local zoning councils" is not accurate, to put it lightly.
This will require referendum for master plan changes NOT ZONING. Much of the outrage against over development was already granted by the underlying zoning and master plan designation. Some of those have been in place since the beginning of the growth management act and were entirely the result of the market going berserk.
Now, I'd be remiss if I pretended that was the case for all when clearly it isn't.
As a challenge, dig through the CDMP hearings for the County and City of Miami and try to connect them to current development projects. Those would be the ones that would be addressed by Amendment 4. You'll find it to be a small intersection of the whole universe.
I think we should tar and feather developers and we should start with Manny Codina. He has paved over more natural vegatation in South Florida than anyone I know. He has encroached on our fresh water well fields out west and filled in mangrove wetlands at Deering Bay. He has even buddied up to Bruce Greer at Fairchild Tropical Botanical Garden who just got done dismanteling the biggest environmental awareness movement South Florida has ever seen. These people collectively are ruining South Florida.
Post a Comment