Showing posts with label Comprehensive Master Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comprehensive Master Plan. Show all posts

Monday, September 04, 2017

More subdivisions to flood out West? Maybe. By Geniusofdespair

 Not sure what this group will recommend to the County Commission but by its members I can make a prediction (but I won't, I am saving my butt):
We Want to Hear From You! The Miami-Dade County Urban Expansion Area Task Force was created to provide recommendations related to the County’s Urban Expansion Areas. To inform these recommendations, the Task Force will hear presentations from subject matter experts ( I believe lobbyist will be making Some of the presentations as they made motions to supply their own speakers -- that passed very aggressively) and receive public comments on key topics during scheduled input sessions. Below is a list of upcoming input sessions of the Urban Expansion Area Task Force. The public is invited to attend and provide input on these issues.

·         September 25, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. - Environmental Considerations Input Session
South Dade Regional Library

·         October 16, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. – Agricultural Considerations Input Session
South Dade Regional Library

·         Additional input sessions will be scheduled at a later date addressing development, transportation, limestone mining and affordable housing. Please check the UEA Task Force website for updates. 

BUT, A BIG BUT:
Nooo. Not a Butt...a "but"

We had better remember Texas' flooded subdivisions before erecting anymore subdivisions of our own....

Texas subdivision in 2016 and then flooded in 2017.

We should heed Robert McCabe's words of 2011 (Real Estate and Economic Research):
South Florida really needs a regional plan for controlled growth (before it becomes a concrete jungle similar to Houston), and a completely new set of elected officials that make decisions based on what's good for the future of South Florida instead of what's good for their wallets.
National Flood Insurance is already $25 BILLION in debt. What could another hurricane do to all those Florida Subdivisions a couple of feet above sea level?

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Miami Dade County UDB Line UNDER ATTACK from 3 Applications. By Geniusofdespair

The May CDMP (Comprehensive Development Master Plan) Cycle has the UDB Line Under attack from 3 Applications -- the most we have had in years.  Scroll in each one to the end to see the maps of where they are.  Lets put more people out West where they can stand still in mind numbing traffic during their hours of commute and be a neighbor to the Everglades bitching about animals, mosquitos and burns, and lets especially hope they enjoy the flooding to come.

Application 6 (least offensive - sounds like a fix to a change)

••••••••••••
Application 7
Bullshit name: Green city. Are they nuts? This application is 121 page.


••••••••••••••
Application 8
app8-may15cycle-rev(1)

This is who the Neighborhood Planning Company consists of:
GUERRA, ARMANDO J
Title MGR
RASCO, RAMON E
Title MGR
HERRAN, AGUSTIN
Title MGR
PINO, SERGIO

They want to incorporate this one into a separate city!!!!! See Page 2 Number 4.  See ownership percentages all the way at the end. Rodney Barreto owns a bit of it.



What does Tropical Audubon Society have to say:

NEWSFLASH! 2 New UDB Extension Applications Filed!

The first, to include 859 acres (gross acreage) west of 167th Avenue and East of Krome Avenue between SW 64th Street and North Kendall Drive:

* Redesignate "Parcel A" To industrial and Office and Parcel B to business and office.
* Adopt "Green City Miami" as a land use category. Change the Land use map designation for this area from agriculture to "Green City Miami"
* Designate new Metropolitan and Community Urban Centers in this area
* Expand roadways on segments of 72nd street and 167th avenue to make for greater accessibility
* Amend LU-8F, Introduce LU-8J, 8J would allow TOV's to reserve UDB capacity for an additional five years (after the extension to 20 proposed in the 8F amendment) so long as the development incorporates specific and significant commitments to achieve public policies. Puts limits on amount of future capacity that can be reserved by all TOV's throughout county (individually 10%, overall 30%)

The second, to include approximately 61.1 acres located in section 31 Township 54 South, Range 39 east on the south east corner of the intersection of SW177Ave SW 88th street from agricultural use to half industrial / half residential use.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Rock Mining CDMP Amendment Goes Down in Flames. By Geniusofdespair

The Miami Dade County Planning Advisory Board usually rubber stamps changes to the Miami Dade County Comprehensive Plan and passes them along to the County Commission for their final review. Well not in the case of the text changes requested by the damn Rock Miners (see my post of February 15th.) The Rock interests were trying to NOT have a super-majority vote to expand their operations but the Advisory Board denied their request unanimously and voted not to transmit. That is quite a blow to the industry and came as a big surprise to me. The County Commission can over-rule this vote.
Commissioner Barbara Jordan Confers with one of the Brown Brothers

On the second issue, that Brown property did get an adopt and transmit to the State from the Advisory Board (there were only 3 nays). That one was about Brown getting the UDB line changed a few years back with a PROMISE TO NEVER HAVE RESIDENTIAL. It was office. The application is NOW asking for residential. All I can say is: Liars!

I also reported on the Brown property on January 9th in my blog "It is Back!! like a bad case of the runs."

The Brown will be heard at the BCC on May 16th.

Thursday, March 01, 2012

That Bitch Bogdanoff. By Geniusofdespair

Loser Senator Bogdanoff is running an amendment to HB 4003 to prohibit local super-majority votes on the CDMP - up tomorrow on the floor.

Amendment language

This is just after the Mayor has proposed a 3/4 instead of a 2/3's majority.  Say goodbye to the UDB if this passes. This is the same woman pushing the gambling. She is truly evil.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Proposed CDMP Amendment by the Damn Rock Miners. By Geniusofdespair

In the October 2011 cycle for CDMP (Comprehensive Development Master Plan) changes the rock miners are trying to chip, chip away at our safeguards.

They are trying to get rid of the language that calls for a super majority of the County Commission to approve EXPANSION of existing ROCK MINES. This is a toxic change.  I can't keep up with all the crap going on. Cemex's Application 4 is a text amendment it will be heard at  a Planning Advisory Board hearing on February 22nd at 2pm.


Also on the same cycle is the Brown Application change in use from WHAT THEY PROMISED and agreed to - to get the approval to move the UDB line - to include residential. 

This will be heard March 8th by a Community Council 11 (West Kendall).

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

State Committee is GUTTING the Comprehensive Plan. By Geniusofdespair

The State Committee Substitute (CS) is making numerous changes to Florida's Growth Management Act. Here is one really bad change for us with protecting the Urban Development Boundary (UDB):

Section 4 amends s. 163.3167, F.S., to delete the role of the regional planning council in creating new comprehensive plans. The CS deletes the retroactive effect of the section. Under the CS, local governments may not have in place an initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment. The CS prohibits local governments from adopting a super majority voting requirement for the adoption of amendments to the comprehensive plan.
And, here is some more toxic stuff:

The CS deletes:
the public schools facilities element and most portions of the schools interlocal agreement.
the optional elements of the coastal management element.
the requirement that the intergovernmental coordination element recognize campus master plans and airport master plans.
provisions related to visioning and urban service boundaries.


And:

Section 11 amends s. 163.3180, F.S., to remove requirement that local governments have concurrency for parks and recreation, schools, and transportation facilities. In order for a local government to rescind any optional concurrency provisions, a comprehensive plan amendment is required. An amendment rescinding optional concurrency issues is not subject to state review.

The bill CS/SB 1122 is 37 pages. There is more I have singled out:


Section 1 amends s. 163.3161, F.S., redesignating the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act" as the "Community Planning Act". The CS revises the intent and purpose of act. (Does not include the part related to updating the comprehensive plan based on the EAR).

Section 2 revises s. 163.3162, F.S., related to agricultural enclaves to remove references to rule 9J-5.006(5), F.A.C., and to specify plan amendments are presumed not to be urban sprawl as defined in s. 163.3164, F.S.

Section 3 amends s. 163.3164, F.S., to revise and alphabetize the definitions section. A number of definitions are added from ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., including:

capital improvement
compatibility
deepwater ports
floodprone areas
goal
intensity
level of service
objective policy

Affordable housing is revised to include only s. 420.0004(3), F.S., which states that “Affordable” means that monthly rents or monthly mortgage payments including taxes, insurance, and utilities do not exceed 30 percent of that amount which represents the percentage of the median adjusted gross annual income. This definition is narrower than the definition in ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., which also includes affordable housing definitions that are prescribed by other affordable housing programs administered by either the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or the State of Florida.

The CS creates a new definition of “new town.” Under the CS a new town is an urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban area designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services that demonstrate internal trip capture. A new town shall be based on a master development plan.

Urban sprawl is redefined as a development pattern characterized by low density, automobile- dependent development with either a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring the extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses. This definition is different than the definition currently in ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., which would have discouraged “the premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses” and “[t]he creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided. Urban sprawl is typically manifested in one or more of the following land use or development patterns: Leapfrog or scattered development;

ribbon or strip commercial or other development; or large expanses of predominantly low- intensity, low-density, or single-use development.”
The CS includes the following new definitions:

“Antiquated subdivision” means a subdivision that was recorded or approved more than 20 years ago and that has substantially failed to be built and the continued buildout of the subdivision in accordance with the subdivision’s zoning and land use purposes would cause an imbalance of land uses and would be detrimental to the local and regional economies and environment, hinder current planning practices, and lead to inefficient and fiscally irresponsible development patterns as determined by the respective jurisdiction in which the subdivision is located.
“Internal trip capture” means trips generated by a mixed-use project which travel from one on- site land use to another on-site land use without using the external road network.

“Mobility plan” means an integrated land use and transportation plan that promotes compact, mixed-use, and interconnected development served by a multimodal transportation system that includes roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and, where feasible and appropriate, frequent transit and rail service, to provide individuals with viable transportation options without sole reliance upon a motor vehicle for personal mobility.

“Transit-oriented development” means a project or projects, in areas identified in a local government comprehensive plan, which are or will be served by existing or planned transit service. These designated areas shall be compact, moderate to high density developments, of mixed-use character, interconnected with other land uses, bicycle and pedestrian friendly, and designed to support frequent transit service operating through, collectively or separately, rail, fixed guideway, streetcar, or bus systems on dedicated facilities or available roadway connections.

The CS revises the following existing definitions:
“Urban service area” to mean areas where public facilities and services, including, but not limited to, central water and sewer capacity and roads, are already in place or are committed in the first 3 years of the capital improvement schedule. Urban service area includes any areas identified in the comprehensive plan as urban service areas, regardless of local government limitation.

The “optional sector plan” (a pilot program, which is expanded in the CS) is changed to “sector plan” means the process authorized by s. 163.3245, F.S., in which one or more local governments engage in long-term planning for a large area and address regional issues through adoption of detailed specific area plans within the planning area as a means of fostering innovative planning and development strategies, furthering the purposes of this part and part I of chapter 380, reducing overlapping data and analysis requirements, protecting regionally significant resources and facilities, and addressing extrajurisdictional impacts. "Sector plan" includes an optional sector plan that was adopted pursuant to the Optional Sector Plan pilot program.

The definition of “financial feasibility” is revised to expand the timeframe that capital improvements must have committed or planned funding sources from 5 to 10 years.
The definition of “dense urban land” area is deleted.

Section 4 amends s. 163.3167, F.S., to delete the role of the regional planning council in creating new comprehensive plans. The CS deletes the retroactive effect of the section. Under the CS, local governments may not have in place an initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment. The CS prohibits local governments from adopting a super majority voting requirement for the adoption of amendments to the comprehensive plan.

Section 5 creates s. 163.3168, F.S., entitled "planning innovations and technical assistance" to encourage local governments use innovative planning tools. The CS authorizes the state land planning agency and other appropriate state and regional agencies to provide local governments with technical assistance.

Section 6 amends s. 163.3171, F.S., to clarify that joint planning agreements should be broadly construed, that courts have sole jurisdiction to interpret joint planning agreements, and that the validity of a joint planning agreement may not be a basis for finding plan amendments not in compliance.

Section 7 amends subsection (1) of s. 163.3174, F.S., to delete certain notice requirements relating to the establishment of local planning agencies by a governing body.

Section 8 rewrites s. 163.3177, F.S. This CS changes the format of the future land use element provisions to increase readability. The comprehensive plans must still include the local government’s goals and policies. The CS deletes the optional elements of the comprehensive plan, but specifically allows local governments to have optional elements. The comprehensive plan must be justified by professionally accepted data. The plan must accommodate at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the resident and seasonal population projections. Population data gives the minimum amount of land required except in areas of critical state concern.

The CS requires capital improvements to support the incorporation of either concurrency or a mobility plan into the capital improvements element. Local governments could amend the financial feasibility of their capital improvements element by ordinance rather than comprehensive plan amendment. The deadline to comply with the financial feasibility requirement is moved to December 1, 2013.

Specific requirements from rule 9J-5, F.A.C., have been added, including provisions relating to urban sprawl. Each map depicting future conditions must reflect the principles, guidelines, and standards within all elements and each such map must be included in the comprehensive plan. This CS requires the future land use element to clearly identify the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use, but deletes language related to school citing. This CS also removes requirements relating to energy efficiency and green house gas reductions. Further, the

BILL: CS/SB 1122 Page 22

CS addresses population projections, the issue of identified need for future development, and highlights the need to address outdated land uses, such as antiquated subdivisions.

The CS allows different parts of the comprehensive plan to have different planning periods. The CS makes one of the goals of the future land use category the need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions.
This CS incorporates, from rule 9J-5, F.A.C., the thirteen primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage urban sprawl.

In addition, this CS adds eight indicators that a plan or plan amendment achieves the discouragement of urban sprawl. If the future land use element or a plan amendment achieves four of these eight indicators within its development pattern or urban form it will automatically be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. These indicators are whether the amendment:

Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. Promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services.

Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available.

Promotes conservation of water and energy. Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.

Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs. Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area.

Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented developments or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164, F.S.

This CS revises and combines the multiple subsections of the transportation element into one subsection of law. This provision contains language promoting coordination of transportation planning between an MPO and the local government plan. The plan will also include mass- transit provisions and an airport master plan.

The CS revises provisions related to the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element, the conservation element, and intergovernmental coordination.

The CS deletes:

BILL: CS/SB 1122 Page 23

the public schools facilities element and most portions of the schools interlocal agreement.
the optional elements of the coastal management element.
the requirement that the intergovernmental coordination element recognize campus master
plans and airport master plans.
provisions related to visioning and urban service boundaries.

Provisions related to rural land stewardship are moved to s. 163.3248, F.S.

Section 9 amends s. 163.31777, F.S. to retain interlocal agreements between a county, the municipalities within, and a school board. However, the CS removes state oversight and review of the interlocal agreements while maintaining certain minimum issues that the interlocal agreement must address. If a local government chooses to maintain optional school concurrency within its jurisdiction, this CS specifies that the interlocal agreement must also meet further requirements.

Section 10 makes conforming changes to s. 163.3178, F.S.

Section 11 amends s. 163.3180, F.S., to remove requirement that local governments have concurrency for parks and recreation, schools, and transportation facilities. In order for a local government to rescind any optional concurrency provisions, a comprehensive plan amendment is required. An amendment rescinding optional concurrency issues is not subject to state review.

If local governments elect to have these concurrency programs, the CS specifies the framework of how concurrency is to operate. For example, local governments that implement transportation concurrency must:

Consult with the DOT when proposed plan amendments affect facilities on the strategic intermodal system. Exempt public transit facilities from concurrency. Allow an applicant for a development of regional impact development order, a rezoning, or other land use development permit to satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements of the local comprehensive plan, the local government’s concurrency management system, and s. 380.06, F.S., when applicable.

Calculate proportionate share according to a specific formula. Specifically, the CS modifies the calculation of proportionate share to specify that development does not pay for impacts on roadways that do not meet level of service standards or on roadways that are financed by tolls.

For those local governments that implement school concurrency, a local government may allow a landowner to proceed with development of a specific parcel of land notwithstanding a failure of the development to satisfy school concurrency, if all the following factors are shown to exist:

The proposed development would be consistent with the future land use designation for the specific property and with pertinent portions of the adopted local plan, as determined by the local government. The local government’s capital improvements element and the school board’s educational facilities plan provide for school facilities adequate to serve the proposed development, and the local government or school board has not implemented that element or the project

BILL: CS/SB 1122 Page 24

includes a plan that demonstrates that the capital facilities needed as a result of the project can be reasonably provided. The local government and school board have provided a means by which the landowner will be assessed a proportionate share of the cost of providing the school facilities necessary to serve the proposed development.
Section 12 reenacts s. 163.31801, F.S., relating to the burden of proof/standard of review for impact fees in response to ongoing litigation. To remove any doubt regarding whether this section is an unconstitutional mandate, this provision requires approval by each house of the Legislature by two-thirds of the membership.
Additionally, the CS creates a 2-year moratorium on impact fees. It does not affect impact fees pledged or obligated for the retirement of debt or impact fees for water or wastewater.

Section 13 amends s. 163.3182, F.S., to revise terminology. The CS then revises the definition of transportation deficiency to include areas where the projected traffic volume exceeds the level of service standard adopted in a local government comprehensive plan for a transportation facility. This makes the definition consistent with other places in statute.

The CS would revise language relating to the schedule for financing and construction of projects that will eliminate deficiencies as part of a transportation deficiency plan. Specifically, the CS language states that if mass transit is selected as all or part of the system solution, the improvements and service may extend outside the transportation deficiency areas to the planned terminus of the improvement as long as the improvement provides capacity enhancements to a larger intermodal system.

Section 14 amends 163.3184, F.S., to revise the definition of “in compliance” with certain growth management laws to eliminate reference to the state comprehensive plan and ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., but include consistency with the rural land stewardship program. The CS defines “reviewing agencies.” The CS deletes the expedited processes for community visioning, urban service boundaries, urban infill and redevelopment, and housing incentive strategy plan amendments because all plan amendments will be expedited under the CS.

Section 15 amends s. 163.3187, F.S., to delete the penalty for failure to adopt amendments in accordance with the evaluation and appraisal report.

Section 16 amends s. 163.3191, F.S., to create exceptions from the evaluation and appraisal reporting requirement and to relax the requirements generally. The following local governments would be exempted completely:

A municipality of special financial concern with a per capita taxable value of assessed property of $58,000 or less; or A municipality with a population under 20,000 with a per capita taxable value of assessed property of $46,000 or less; or Small counties.

THERE IS PLENTY MORE!

Monday, March 08, 2010

State Dept. didn't care for the Miami-Dade Application to move the UDB line. By Geniusofdespair

The County Commission sent the Ferro Application to move the Urban Development Boundary up to Tallahassee's Department of Community Affairs (DCA) a few months ago for review. The review is back and not looking too good. It appears the State Department didn't think much of the application, finding numerous inconsistencies with the Miami Dade County Comprehensive Master Plan, including that the UDB line should not be moved. The South Florida Water Management District also weighed in on the application. BTW the application is in the West wellfield protection area where our drinking water originates.

Now the County Commission will do as it always does. The unreformable majority will totally ignore the State of Florida. Perhaps it will be a replay of last cycle, the county still is in a lawsuit with the State. Here are MORE of the DCA objections:



Thursday, January 14, 2010

Floridians for Smarter Growth: Liars, Liars Pants In Flames. By Geniusofdespair

The idiotic Hialeah Government called Amendment 4, on their agenda, the "Vote on Everything Amendment," a phrase coined by the phony Floridians For Smarter Growth (a bunch of developers, lobbyists, lawyers, etc. that think you are stupid. They should be called growth-at-any-cost). I think that it is very unprofessional for a Government entity to put a partisan slogan in their official papers, but it is Hialeah so I shouldn't be surprised. It is disrespectful nonetheless. For the record: Amendment 4 doesn’t cover re-zonings, variances, permits or annexations; just comprehensive plan* changes. That's it. And not ALL plan changes just "land use changes." President of Florida Hometown Democracy, Lesley Blackner says:

The plain language of Amendment 4 establishes voter referendum only over comprehensive plan changes that concern “future land development.” Nothing else.

Land-use is just ONE element of the plans. How many land-use changes are there? For example, none in Miami Beach for the last three years that I checked and Coral Gables gets 1 to 3 a year since 2005. With Miami 21 pending, the giant overhaul of the zoning code of the City of Miami, they must have had more. But, for the most part, Comprehensive Plan Changes are few and far between. You would know them: they are usually those very large developments or those very wrong developments that occur in the worst possible places. You see a little map in a newspaper notice-ad when a comp plan land-use change is occurring. Most land use comprehensive plan changes in the County are Urban Development Boundary assaults, and there aren't that many of those either. The misinformation on Florida Amendment 4 is akin to the death squads for seniors. For instance:

Your opportunity to vote only kicks in if the Commission or Council APPROVES THE CHANGE. You get to veto their vote. You might have something on the bottom of your ballot to vote on, like those city/county questions you vote on every so often. That's it. You aren't going to be faced with pages of questions, that is just hype. And, you don't have to vote on them anyway, Florida's Amendment 4 would just give you the option. If you trust your County or City Commission, you can totally ignore the vote that Amendment 4 would afford you. People already only vote on stuff they care about, so this isn't so different. No one will be holding a gun to your head forcing you to vote or read something. You only vote if you care enough.

Don't get sucked in by the developers and their lobbyists with phony slogans. I don't know what all the fuss is about. Who wouldn't want more power over their surroundings? Unless you are a developer, this can't hurt you. It gives you an extra layer of protection in your neighborhood. How is that so bad?

BTW, Floridians for Smarter Growth is funded by developers, lobbyists, builder's groups, developer interests and the Chamber of Commerce. Yeah, they have YOUR best interest at heart. These rich guys are actually asking for donations too, posing as a grass-roots group. Give me a break! Here are some groups that are opposing Amendment 4 on Floridians for Smarter Growth - The group that thinks your stupid website:

Florida Building & Construction Trades Council
Florida Building Materials Association
Florida Chamber of Commerce
Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association
Florida Coalition for Property Rights
Florida Economic Development Council
Florida Engineering Society
Florida Farm Bureau Federation
Florida Forestry Association
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
Florida Gulfcoast Commercial Association of Realtors
Florida Home Builders Association
Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers
Florida Land Council
Florida Land Title Association
Florida League of Cities
Florida Limerock & Aggregate Institute (rock miners)
Asphalt Contractors Association of Florida
Building Owners and Managers Association of Florida
Business Development Board of Palm Beach County, Inc.
Business Forum of Palm Beach County
Central Florida Commercial Association of Realtors

*Comprehensive plans: In 1985, the Florida Legislature enacted The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act that requires all Florida counties and municipalities to adopt Local Government Comprehensive Plans to guide future growth and development including land use, housing, transportation and infrastructure, among other aspects. These plans are updated every 7 years by cities and counties under the leadership of the State of Florida's Department of Community Affairs and Regional Planning Council. This review is known as the EAR process. A developer can do anything that is approved in the plan. Growth is built into the plan. It is when the developer wants something MORE, that is when you have an application to change a development plan.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The 2010 EAR. Guest Blog by Caitlin. Posted by Geniusofdespair

Genius Said: I showed up for the 10 to 4 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) meeting fashionably late, 11:30. It was over in 15 minutes at 11:45. Instead of State regulators coming down, it was a video conference. I only went to talk to regulators...that weren't there. bummer. Luckily Caitlin decided to blog:

Every 7 years the County, under the guidance of the State Department of Community Affairs, has to review their growth management plan (the Comprehensive Master Plan). Local, regional and state officials made their goal for the EAR process clear at this morning’s scoping meeting: manage growth sustainably. This was reflected in the agenda which was divided into Growth Management and Climate Change/Sea Level Rise.

It was encouraging to hear the County say they wanted to “densify” certain areas and promote growth in a transit-oriented way. Land-use rules in our plan state that we must be able to support 15 years of growth within the UDB, however, our current plan addresses growth until 2018, leaving a gap. We can deal with that through redevelopment and infill, as the County suggested, but this conundrum raises the question, at what point do we stop growing? Of course, no one wants to discuss this, but even non-tree huggers have to admit there simply isn’t enough water or land for us to continue unmitigated, exponential growth.  Now, I wouldn’t suggest any China-inspired population control policies, but making our economy a little less growth-driven would be helpful. And this notion some have that the UDB is a whimsical suggestion needs to go.

There were a couple of farmers in attendance who came because they were worried about the future of the farming industry if not protected by the growth management plan.

County Planners must now set to work adjusting the plan so it will be palatable to the County Commissioners, who must vote on it, and State regulators, who must sign off on it.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Lowe's Loss - See the Video of the Cabinet Meeting and Read the Herald Article. By Geniusofdespair

The county will now live with the decision, said Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel. But Martha Harrell Chumbler, the lawyer who represented Lowe's, said that her client will decide in the next 30 days whether to appeal the ruling. - Miami Herald and:
Miami-Dade County Commissioner Joe Martinez, who championed the Lowe’s application, said he was disappointed by the ruling and hoped Lowe’s would continue its fight. - The South Florida Business Journal

Watch the Cabinet Meeting on the Lowe's application to move the Urban Development Boundary.
The discussion begins at 41:00 on the counter but don't bother going to the link if you don't have Real Audio Player. Here is the Miami Herald article (that McCollum is a real idiot):

Florida Cabinet thwarts plan to alter Miami-Dade development boundary

By MARY ELLEN KLAS
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau

Gov. Charlie Crist and Cabinet members sent Miami-Dade and other urban counties a message Tuesday when they rejected the county's attempt to move the development line west to accommodate a Lowe's Superstore.

Crist and the Cabinet, voting 3-1, agreed with an administrative law judge that the county violated the state's Growth Management Act when it expanded the urban development boundary for the home improvement center.

Environmentalists and urban planners hailed the decision, saying it sets a precedent for dealing with counties that attempt to bend state growth management laws and allow sprawl. They hope the ruling will halt attempts by politically powerful developers who are seeking to move development boundaries in other counties, including the creation of a new suburb on the Everglades' doorstep in Miami-Dade called Parkland.

"You can't hire a consultant to sort of gerrymander a needs analysis to determine the outcome," said Richard Grosso, a lawyer who represented the National Parks Conservation Association and 1000 Friends of Florida in the case.
He said counties like Miami-Dade can't "justify moving the boundary for the next parcel" just because it's next to farmland. "It's a boundary for a reason."

In Miami-Dade, the Urban Development Boundary, or UDB, is a demarcation line that runs along the western and southern edges of the county and limits development to one dwelling per five acres outside its borders. Lowe's sought the boundary change in order to build a store at the intersection of Tamiami Trail and Southwest 137th Avenue on a 52-acre parcel.

The Cabinet decision was a blow to county commissioners who twice overrode a veto by Mayor Carlos Alvarez and pushed through the changes based on a consultant's analysis that said there was a need for the Lowe's store in the region. Alvarez had argued that the county had enough commercial space and the expansion wasn't needed.

APPEAL BY LOWE'S?
The county will now live with the decision, said Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel. But Martha Harrell Chumbler, the lawyer who represented Lowe's, said that her client will decide in the next 30 days whether to appeal the ruling.

`WRONG STANDARD'
Chumbler told the governor and Cabinet that the judge's ruling was flawed because he failed to consider an analysis that showed the community needed general commercial development. ``The wrong standard of review has been applied,'' she said.
In a separate case, the panel also agreed with Judge Bram D.E. Canter that the county was within the law when it approved another amendment for a 42-acre commercial development at the western end of Kendall Drive, known as the Brown tract.
Miami-Dade's Department of Planning and Zoning had urged denial of that change as well, saying there was plenty of available space inside the boundary lines. But Canter said the exception was justified because of the unusual configuration and location of the parcel and because it set no precedent for future developers wishing to move the UDB line.

Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson was the lone no vote.

But Attorney General Bill McCollum also seemed to waver. When he was first asked his vote, he responded: ``I didn't say no.'' Twenty minutes later, he amended his vote to ``yes'' and explained that he still had questions about the issue.

`I'M NOT SURE'
``I'm not sure which side is correct on it,'' McCollum said after the meeting. ``It seems to me there is an argument and it may go to court to challenge it.''

He said that because he was in doubt, he voted to approve the staff recommendation to reject the Lowe's amendment and approve the Brown amendment.

Mary Ellen Klas can be reached at meklas@MiamiHerald.com

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

County: Citizen meetings should NOT BE IN AUGUST! By Geniusofdespair

Good News: The County wants your feed back on Growth Issues at Town Hall Meetings.
Bad News: They scheduled the Town Hall Meetings in August. AUGUST? Are they kidding?

The subject of meeting: Help Plan for Miami-Dade County’s Future:

"Every seven years Miami-Dade County is required to update its Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) and produce an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) identifying the County’s major growth management issues (land use, development, transportation, etc). For the EAR 2010 process to be successful, we need to hear from you. Help us plan for Miami-Dade County’s future!"

Well, if you have nothing to do in August (I will be gone) here is the schedule:

Monday, August 24, 2009 from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. MLK Center
2525 NW 62 Street, 2nd Floor.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. 6699 Windmill Gate Road,
Miami Lakes Library

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. West Kendall Regional Library
10201 Hammocks Blvd

Thursday, August 27, 2009 from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. South Dade Government Center

Monday, March 02, 2009

Citizen: You are about to get screwed...Again. By Geniusofdespair

As reporter Curtis Morgan said: Call it Jobs vs. Environment. I call that "bullshit. Jobs are a diverting tactic." According to the article:

“To light a fire under the frozen economy, some lawmakers are seeking to "streamline" a slew of environmental and growth regulations. Proposals call for erasing or weakening everything from wetlands and wildlife protections to requirements that developers improve roads to handle the traffic glut of new projects.” And, Morgan says:

“Environmental groups and the Florida League of Cities warn that the moves could produce more of the uncontrolled sprawl that earned foreclosure-ridden Florida the 'Ponzi State' label in a recent New Yorker magazine piece.”

This sucks. See Gimleteye’s blog about this yesterday. It appears the Miami Herald reported it, a day later. Get the contact information for your Senator with this link. And here is more info on Senate Bill 360:

While 1000 Friends supports many of the concepts underlying the bill, especially incentivizing and stimulating growth in urban areas, we have serious concerns that SB 360 would stimulate sprawl in suburban and rural areas as well. In a nutshell, in those cities and counties with more than 1000 people per square mile or more than 1 million in population, SB 360 would:

Eliminate Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review.
Eliminate Transportation Concurrency requirements.
Eliminate Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Plan Amendment review.
Provide for only one local public hearing for development projects.

1000 Friends agrees that these measures are appropriate to promote infill development in truly urban areas in Florida and would support such legislation. However, SB 360’s “1000 people/per square mile” criterion promotes unchecked development in vast swatches of fringe and rural lands. Using this definition, the above exemptions would be applied to: 

All development projects in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Orange, Palm Beach and Seminole Counties.

All development projects within the incorporated areas of as many as 270 municipalities in Florida, ranging from tiny Arcadia to Tallahassee to Naples. (There are some exemptions for those parts of communities that are in the Coastal High Hazard Area and other special planning areas).

For certain development projects in areas designated as Rural Areas of Critical Economic Concern (these would not require DCA reviews of plan amendments).

Promoting appropriate infill in Florida’s urban areas is an important tool in efforts to limit sprawl and protect this state’s rapidly vanishing rural lands. 1000 Friends would support well-crafted legislation to that end. However, as drafted SB 360 would seriously undermine growth management efforts in some of the most important areas in Florida, and promote rural sprawl in some of the largest counties.

While we understand the desire to quickly pass legislation to stimulate the economy, such efforts must be undertaken with caution. With passage of the 2008 Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bill, we all learned the painful lesson that “the devil is in the details.” Let’s not make similar mistakes with SB 360.

Ask your Senator to make sure that the issues raised in 1000 Friends of Florida’s letter of February 12, 2008 to Senate Community Affairs Chairman Mike Bennett are resolved before this legislation is adopted.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Yankeetown Has it Right. Guest Blog by weRwatching

While traveling, I like to read the local newspapers. It helps put things in perspective. I came across this legal advertisement (hit to enlarge it) about Master Plan changes in Yankeetown, Florida. I don’t know much about Yankeetown but they have it right when it comes to Master Plan changes; yes, the people get to vote. At least they vote on amendments that are “remedial”, which seem to be text changes rather than specific projects. Text changes are important because they set future policy. Text changes may seem boring but the impact can be great. For example, changing a road classification from rural to urban or minor to major can change that sleepy, rural, 2 lane road in front of your house into a 6 lane highway. Text changes need to be scrutinized as carefully as more obvious ones, like moving the UDB.

Florida Hometown Democracy advocates that everyone in Florida should have the right to vote on Master Plan changes in their neighborhoods. Don’t laugh at Yankeetown, they are way ahead of Miami-Dade in practicing democracy. Congratulations Yankeetown, you have something many of us are denied.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Land speculators take a beating in Virginia: could Miami-Dade be next? by gimleteye

Since many of our readers may have missed this post from last weekend: Loudon County, Virginia-- one of the most conservative counties in a state red to the core-- has done something quite unusual. County supervisors-- the equivalent of our Miami Dade County Commissioners-- have voted to bar campaign contributions from builders and others with proposals before the board.

In light of last night's community council meeting in the Redland (reported on, below, by SunshineUnderground), this good news deserves a closer look.

There is no market for multi-million dollar homes clustered around a lifeless rock pit in South Dade farmland. But that hasn't stopped the wealthiest, most powerful lobbyists in Miami Dade who are own land purchased at speculative values far in excess of current market from trying to do what they have always done: bend county commissioners to their will.

Now, if the developers and their engineers and lobbyists were barred from campaign contributions-- would that make a difference?

Apparently the supervisors of Loudon County have felt the sting of voters furious with the costs of growth imposed by developers whose boom times depended on liar loans, mortgage fraud and worse. It's backlash time, in Loudon County.

Supervisors there have taken a look at the bleak landscape of foreclosures, empty platted subdivisions, and realized that-- by gum!-- the dominance of real estate campaign cash isn't such a good thing after all!

You might want to have a quick look at this entertaining website, chronicling the abuses of the mortgage industry: Implode-O-Meter. Could banks that Pino, Barreto, et al are connected to, someday make this list!

Pino and Barreto are major Republican campaign contributors in Miami-Dade. In Loudon County In 2003, Democrats occupied only 3 of 29 elected county positions. Today, Democrats are running nearly even.

What happened? For one, the building boom overran rural Loudon, just like it did here in Miami-Dade County.

Pino, Barreto et al spread platted subdivisions and its costs like confetti. It couldn't have happened without the blind support of the county commission, charged with zoning and permitting according to "comprehensive land use planning" requirements of the State of Florida.

Then came the crash, and now-- at least in Loudon--comes the backlash by voters. Could it happen here?

Declaring independence from builders' political money: imagine the howls of protest from County Commissioner Javier Souto, Natacha Seijas, Joe Martinez and the rest of the unreformable majority including incumbent African American county commissioners from inner city districts whose most reliable source of campaign cash is-- you guessed it!-- builders seeking zoning changes in distant farmland edging to the Everglades.

What a vote for freedom it would be for Miami-Dade and municipalities like Hialeah and Miami if voters demanded a reasonable limitation: that builders, lobbyists, engineering firms and lawyers who apply for zoning changes and permits are barred from making political contributions!

Anyhow, read more to satisfy yourself this is not an hallucination.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:
Loudoun Board Bars Use Of Builder Campaign Funds

By Sandhya Somashekhar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 2, 2008; Page B01

Loudoun County supervisors voted yesterday to bar themselves from accepting campaign contributions from builders and others with proposals before the board as part of a broad effort to restore public confidence in a body that some have viewed as too close to the development community.

Supervisors voted overwhelmingly for the change, with only Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling) dissenting. Delgaudio said such a policy was tantamount to curbing freedom of expression.

But Lori L. Waters (R-Broad Run) said it was a necessary step, even though it will put incumbent supervisors at a disadvantage when running for reelection against challengers without such limitations.

"We are holding ourselves to a higher standard . . . than the people who might challenge us," Waters said. "But I think that it will help build the public trust, not only for the people, but for the applicants, so we're all clear what the rules are."

The change is part of an ethics package proposed in January by Supervisor James Burton (I-Blue Ridge), who has called for greater transparency in the wake of rapid growth in the county -- growth that he and other critics have said was spurred by county leaders who were too friendly with developers.

In recent elections, developers and others in the building community have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to local political campaigns. Some of the county officials who have benefited the most from the donations -- Republicans Stephen J. Snow (Dulles), Bruce E. Tulloch (Potomac), Mick Staton Jr. (Potomac), Jim Clem (Leesburg) and Delgaudio -- were generally supportive of the growth, which they said was a sign of economic strength. All but Delgaudio have been replaced on the board.

In January 2007, the close relationships between developers and some supervisors were detailed in a series in The Washington Post. Shortly after the stories were published, local authorities announced a federal probe into potential public corruption in Loudoun County. To date, authorities have not announced any charges.

Bob Maistros, who worked for Snow's campaign, said Snow and others were unfairly labeled as unethical because of their pro-growth perspective.

"People took the growth issue and implied that anyone who wasn't no-growth was in the pocket of developers. That's unfair and it's inaccurate," he said. "That's what damaged the public trust in the board, the use of the ethics issue as a proxy for the pitched battle over growth versus no growth."

In the end, in the face of intense opposition from residents who blamed the growth for their crowded schools and roads and rising tax bills, past supervisors rejected several high-profile development proposals. Still, it wasn't enough for voters, who ousted pro-growth supervisors (with the exception of Delgaudio) in favor of those who were critical of growth.

The current board has sought to be open in its relations with the community. During every regular board meeting, board members engage in a detailed and sometimes lengthy disclosure period in which they list all the people they have met with since the previous meeting, such as landowners, business owners, community activists and journalists.

John A. Andrews II, a developer and former School Board member, praised the board's decision yesterday to decline campaign contributions from those who have issues pending before the board.

"I just think it makes for cleaner government, so I have no problems with it," he said.

One plan to improve accountability, however, has not come through. Last year, in an effort to improve its reputation and save the county money, the previous board voted to hire an inspector general to conduct internal investigations. But supervisors did not follow through this year because of the tight budget.

Guest Blog: A farm is a farm is a farm if I say it is, by SunshineUnderground


They needed 5 votes, a "super majority" to gain approval, but they didn't get it. By a vote of 4-3, the West Kendall Community Council 11 turned down a proposal made by Krome Gold Ranches to turn 464 acres of former agricultural land into an upscale residential development with 19 multimillion dollar homes and a 171 acre lake. The vote was exactly the same as the one that occurred a few months before, and it was followed by a formality – a vote of 5-1 rejecting the proposal so the council would not have to take the issue up again. The practical result is that nothing changes. Now, the issue will be decided by the County Commissioners, probably sometime in October.

Between now and then, the developers in the room last night – like Sergio Pino and Rodney Barreto – and many others that were not present, will direct their lobbying and campaign donations accordingly. There is much at stake for them, as this proposed development is valuable not just because of the houses that would be sold there, but because the rock fill dug to make the lake could be used to lay the foundation for another, bigger development they are reportedly planning further south, Parkland.

But what was clear last night, in a stuffy, non air-conditioned band room at Arvida Middle School, is that this is one case where the developers have encountered a stubborn and organized resistance, and they may, not, as usually, get what they want.

It all came down, as it so often does, to a question of semantics. What is a farm residence? Is it a home where a farmer lives, or a home on a plot of land that could, someday, be used to grow crops?

The lawyer hired to represent the developers, the extremely competent and one would assume well-paid Juan Mayol of the firm Holland and Knight, had to convince the board that a house on 10-acres was indeed a farm residence independent of any actual farming, because the county's comprehensive plan classifies the area as agricultural, where only "farm residences" are permitted to be built.

He said that the development's millionaire residents might decide to become small farmers, so the homes would be "farm residences", which is undeniably true, but by the same logic, my apartment is a high tech research facility, because I could, theoretically, build a lab in my living room and decide to become a scientist.

This did not stop a majority of the board from supporting the development. Chairman Domingo Castillo and member Patricia Davis argued that the board should approve the project because a denser and more poorly planned development could someday be approved for the area, and it was better to approve this one while they still could.

It was a point that the lawyer who spoke against the project, Tucker Gibbs, hired by the Redland Citizen's Association, addressed during his presentation.

"You could say it's better to have these 50 units or these 48 unites than to have 90 some units," he said". "That's not the issue. You all are charged with enforcing the laws. The law is the comprehensive plan. Until that plan is changed – until they change the land use and say that's not agricultural – you all have an obligation and a duty to protect the agricultural land in this county."

A line of activists, took the microphone to oppose the development. There were also several audience members who supported it, like a lawyer with an expensive suit jacket and black shades on his head who described himself as a "horse breeder". And there were people like Yamil Jamid, an avocado farmer who has a 5-acre lot in the area, and supports the project because he sees it as a way of bolstering falling property values.

They will all likely be present in several months when the issue comes before the county commissioners. By then, the commissioners should be very familiar with the choice before them – between more far-flung, ex-urban residential development, or preserving agriculture, and between following the comprehensive plan, or permitting such a large exception to it that the goal of " preserving agriculture" and the plan's reference to it, will essentially become meaningless. The choice will be clear, and the public, one hopes, will be watching.

- Jared Goyette jaredmgo@gmail.com

Monday, June 09, 2008

Sidewalks! by gimleteye

Miami and other municipalities reminds me how much life the city has surrendered by giving up sidewalks because elected officials defer to land use lobbyists and attorneys over "property rights", building to the edge of commercial streets.
Merchants on Lincoln Road on Miami Beach and Miracle Mile, in the Gables, have all benefited from wider sidewalks that create their own form of community. One depressing failure: the inability of city officials to create a vibrant walkway along the Miami River, especially at the mouth of the river. What a tragic mistake.

Then, there is the failed Sunset Place in South Miami, replacing the Failed Bakery Center. Shops at Sunset Place tries to create a homey feeling inside but erects its walls like a barrier to the outside. On the Red Road side of Sunset Place, there is an extent of covered sidewalk, as if a passing nod to the outward appearance of providing for street life. But the sidewalk, still, is too narrow and the sidewalk "design element" doesn't work. Since it doesn't work, the architects blocked out retail fronting the street.

On the other hand, there is limited sidewalk life on the Sunset Drive side of this edge of South Miami. There are a few small restaurants Sunset who can eek out a few tables. Then there's the "experimental" side street, SW 59th, where the sidewalks were widened; it works! Duh.

Anyhow, the reason I'm writing about sidewalks is that The New York Times Magazine features an interview with Enrique Penlosa, the former mayor of Bogota, Colombia who is eloquent on the subject.

Penlosa says of the failed American development model; "There are many suburbs where there are no sidewalks, which is a very bad sign of a lack of respect for human dignity.. " Here, here! What do you say to that, LBA? And, "If democracy is to prevail, public good must prevail over private interests." County Commissioner Javier Souto, what do you say to that?!

Here is the entire interview:
>
June 8, 2008
QUESTIONS FOR ENRIQUE PEÑALOSA
Man With a Plan

Interview by DEBORAH SOLOMON
Q: As a former mayor of Bogotá, Colombia, who won wide praise for making the city a model of enlightened planning, you have lately been hired by officials intent on building world-class cities, especially in Asia and the developing world. What is the first thing you tell them?

In developing-world cities, the majority of people don’t have cars, so I will say, when you construct a good sidewalk, you are constructing democracy. A sidewalk is a symbol of equality.

I wouldn’t think that sidewalks are a top priority in developing countries. The last priority. Because the priority is to make highways and roads. We are designing cities for cars, cars, cars, cars, cars. Not for people. Cars are a very recent invention. The 20th century was a horrible detour in the evolution of the human habitat. We were building much more for cars’ mobility than children’s happiness.

Even in countries where most people can’t afford to own cars?

The upper-income people in developing countries never walk. They see the city as a threatening space, and they can go for months without walking one block.

Isn’t that true here in the United States as well?

Not in Manhattan, but there are many suburbs where there are no sidewalks, which is a very bad sign of a lack of respect for human dignity. People don’t even question it. It’s the same as it was in pre-revolutionary France. People thought society was normal, just as today people think it is normal that the Long Island Sound waterfront should be private.

Are you comparing people with homes overlooking the Long Island Sound to corrupt French aristocrats?

If democracy is to prevail, public good must prevail over private interests. The question is: would the majority of people be happier with a public waterfront on the Long Island Sound or not? All children should have access to waterfronts without being members of a country club.

Do most of the six billion people in the world live in cities or in the country?

At this very instant, a little bit more in the country. We are in the process of becoming more urban. In the developing world, more than half the cities, especially in Asia and Africa, are yet to be created.

What are the best-designed cities in the world? The best-designed cities are in northern Europe, like the Dutch and Danish cities.

As mayor of Bogotá, you reclaimed the sidewalks for pedestrians by banning sidewalk parking, your most famous achievement.

The most famous and the most controversial. But we started by building bicycle paths, and now 5 percent of the population, more than 350,000 people, go to work by bicycle.

Why do you think you lost your most recent bid for mayor last year?

I had some huge fights when I was mayor. I was almost impeached for getting the cars off the sidewalk.

Do you own a car? Yes, an S.U.V. with armor.

You mean it’s bulletproof? Yes. We had some problems.

People shot at you? No, they never shot at me, but you never know. Any politician in Colombia is at risk.

Where were you educated?

I went to Duke. I actually majored in economics and history.

You were probably the only socialist at Duke.

I eventually realized, of course, that socialism was a failure as an economic system. Yet equality is not dead. Socialism is dead, but equality as a goal is not dead.

Do you see yourself as a city planner or a politician?

At heart what I really am is a Colombian politician, but a bad one because I lose elections.

INTERVIEW CONDUCTED, CONDENSED AND EDITED BY DEBORAH SOLOMON


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

Thursday, August 30, 2007

That Old Man: Miami River Rocks. By Geniusofdespair


"Captain Beau Payne, owner of the river’s largest tugboat company, credited the Marine Group for bringing to the public’s attention the dangers the Miami River faces from indiscriminate development, and he lauded the attorney who “killed seven with one blow” – a reference to the team of Greenberg Traurig’s seven attorneys who were stood down by one Andrew Dickman, a modern day Jack the giant killer."

Who cares about the Miami River Marine Group winning 2 lawsuits? Really.

Should you care? Should I? Yes people: You should care. This is boring but it is big news!

These are landmark decisions that have implications all over the State of Florida.

To remind you, the State of Florida makes every City and County in Florida write a Comprehensive Master Plan to guide the growth of that entity. It includes everything, transportation, water dependent uses, public access. It is a very inclusive document and fat. These plans are massive -- at least an inch thick.

Many cities and counties change the plans to suit the needs of that next big developer to catch their fancy. Or, worse, cities trample on the objectives of the Comprehensive Master Plans (Comp Plans) without a care in wanton disregard for the future by granting land use changes. That is what Florida Hometown Democracy is trying to stop but that is not our story today.

Well, here on this working river, the judges said: STOP. In fact, they shouted STOP twice! Here is why. In the Comp Plan for the City of Miami one of the objectives the City included was that the Marine Industry needed to be protected on the River. The City, not paying any attention to its own plan, decided to grant land use changes and put condos on the river. Well, guess what, the State of Florida reviews land use changes.

You can’t have people banging on boats while people in condos try to sleep they don’t mix. The city of Miami just figured Condos were a better use I guess but condos would have killed the Marine Industry and the City didn't really care.

The judges sided with the Marine Industry twice which sued based on the plan. Landmark decisions....because now we know we can sue on other parts of the plan that cities/counties don't follow and maybe win!!!!!

Here is the press release which I am now too lazy to read, I am sure it is more accurate than I have been so take their word for it:

PRESS RELEASE (Thursday, August 30, 2007)

Miami River Marine Group and Neighbors Defeat “Coastal on the River” Development

For a second time in the month of August, the Miami River’s marine industry and Durham Park neighborhood claimed a victory in the struggle with the City of Miami’s condo revolution. In a detailed 40-page opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal yesterday reversed the City in its 2006 decision to allow a land use change in the Port of Miami River from Industrial to Restricted Commercial. The Court’s reversal kills prospects for a 633-dwelling unit called Coastal on the River, a development project at 22nd Avenue and the south bank of the Miami River.

The Miami River Marine Group, the Durham Park Neighborhood Association, and Captain Herbert “Beau” Payne filed their law suit against the City and developer (Riverside Investments, LLC) arguing that the land use amendment and development project is contrary to established plans mandating the protection of the Port of Miami River – Florida’s 4th largest port – from incompatible high density developments.

The District Court agreed and ruled that the administrative law judge from the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings “erred by refusing to apply this court’s definition of the Port of Miami River, failed to consider the Port of Miami River Sub-element and critical areas of the Coastal Management and Future Land Use sections of the Comprehensive Plan, failed to consider sections of the River Master Plan, and made findings that were unsupported by the evidence, we reverse.”

Since 2000, the City has approved numerous high rise developments on Industrial riverfront lands despite protests from the marine industry and neighborhoods on the River because that they are damaging the viability of commerce on the River.

The District Court agreed that “…these “small scale” amendments, when viewed together as a whole, are changing the character of the Miami River waterfront without proper long range planning or input from appropriate agencies, departments, and citizen groups.” Captain Beau Payne, owner of the river’s largest tugboat company, credited the Marine Group for bringing to the public’s attention the dangers the Miami River faces from indiscriminate development, and he lauded the attorney who “killed seven with one blow” – a reference to the team of Greenberg Traurig’s seven attorneys who were stood down by one Andrew Dickman, a modern day Jack the giant killer.

The opinion follows a similar opinion rendered by the court on August 8, 2007, just three weeks ago, reversing the City’s approval of the 1,073-dwelling unit Hurricane Cove development located at 18th Avenue on the Miami River.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Thousands of Acres Await Development if only the UDB would move. By Geniusofdespair

In my post "UDB Line Movement Applications" yesterday, I never really explained what I meant about how one movement could cause a cascade of developments. Here is a more detailed analysis of who owns land around this particular 80 acres parcel (outlined in red) that is trying to move the UDB line.

This is why I call it a house of cards, look at just some of the landowners surrounding this piece, waiting in the wings -- people/companies (some of our biggest developers) owning thousands of acres:

1. is Panstar Investments (Netherland Antille, no officers)
2. is CMH Investmentment, Inc. (Jose Machado, Jorge Correa, Emiliano Herran, Augustin Herran)
3. D.R. Horton, Inc. (one of the biggest production Home Builders in the Country)
4. Neighborhood Planning, Co. LLC. (Armando Guerra, Agustin Herran, Carlos Garcia, Sergio Pino and Ramon Rasco)
5. Neighborhood Planning, Co. LLC.
6. Edward W. Easton, Trustee Krome Groves Land Trust (Easton is a Friend of The Bush Boys, -- Parkland DRI — Lennar)

They can't keep it pasture land/farm land forever, they are going to get desperate. You can see these are land investors and they did not buy Ag land to be gentlemen farmers. Nope, almost $15,000,000 for 80 acres...not a farmer! Horton didn't pay $25,000,000 to become cow herders.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

They're Back: UDB Line Movement Applications by Geniusofdespair

This is only one of them...

Ferro Investment Group II, LLC/Miguel Diaz De La Portilla, Esq. & Crystal Conner-Lane, Esq. (Hey, wasn’t she Jimmy Morales’ Chief of Staff?) are requesting an Amendment to the Land Use Plan map (71.6 acres) From: Agriculture to Low Density Residential (2.5 to 6.0 DU/Ac.) and (10.0 acres) From: Agriculture to: Business and Office.

They want to expand the UDB to include the subject property which is now on the wrong side. We knew Miguel had gone to the dark side but now Connors? Et tu Crystal?

That "Hold the Line" group had better gear up. Even the Lowe's store is back for yet another go at it. Lowe's stores suck to do this.

The Ferro Group bought this property for $14,488,438 in June of 2006. Suckers! Hasn't anyone told them we are in the middle of a housing crash? Why would we need more housing when we have unsold properties everywhere? This application is just stupid. NO NEED!

Listed as Mgr. is Mario Ferro and Ris Ferro of Miami Lakes. Take a look at the property....what concerns me is all the open land around it. These UDB applications are a house of cards...once one gets through, others will soon follow. And as you can see by the aerial photo on the right....there is a lot of empty land waiting for the UDB line move.