Farmton, a city of 23,000 homes proposed for a remote tree farm in Volusia and Brevard counties, isn't urban sprawl, according to an administrative law judge's ruling in the first case to test Florida's watered-down growth management law.
Comment Up
Suckered. That’s how Florida and Orange County voters should feel. In the last election we were told that a vote for Hometown Democracy, which left decisions about growth in the hands of citizens, would be a job-killer and ensure our economic downfall. Besides, opponents said in a multi-million dollar campaign funded by developers and landowners, there were enough protections already in place to guard against rampant abuse and sprawl.
Read the rest at the Orlando Sentinel.
We congratulate Mr. Burgess for pursuing this case which forced the developer to make major changes but he still believes the project is just flat wrong. Recently he said, "We're going to end up with just another big empty development on the downside of the largest bubble we've ever seen in the country on excess housing. It's insanity."
Norma Kenya says, "Unless modern man learns to tame his greed and overconsumption, he is destined to destroy himself in the name of “development.” Development without a moral compass is unethical.
It probably is but the deck is getting more and more stacked against the residents of Florida as developers are desperate for work at any cost. Scott is taking away all protections leaving the decisions to local elected officials, the ones who have been the problem all along. And now we learned earlier, impact fees have exploded to 505% from 1993 to 2004 and are continuing to rise as our communities respond to explosive growth and local governments will not be able to compose or collect these fees from the developer.
Circuit Judge Charles Francis of Tallahassee ruled that the Florida Legislature unconstitutionally ordered local governments to exceed a $1.86 million spending cap to implement the law because it fails to provide them with state dollars or the means to raise the funds locally. Read more Senate Committee approves growth law adjustment.
Was Jeff Clemens in the House a part of that unconstitutional vote? Ask him what he thinks on January 19th when he appears at The Lake Worth Democratic Club meeting.
The “adverse” fiscal impact threshold equals just over a penny for each Floridian for five years.
Almost any rule that requires polluters to clean up their act or restricts land use could trigger the ratification provision, making it almost impossible to do anything to protect clean water, stop sprawl, or reduce Florida ’s waste stream. And it’s not just the environment. Traffic safety, physicians and hospitals, insurance regulations, child care, public and private schools, and scores of other areas will feel the impact too. At best, ratification will mean a one year delay to adopt rules. At worst, nothing will ever get done.
The rationale offered by incoming House leaders says the bill merely “changes the criteria for how certain rule-making authority granted to agencies is addressed.” Though they don’t offer any examples of agency overreach, it goes on to warn, “Failure to override the Governor’s veto will allow executive agencies to continue adopting administrative rules with significant negative economic impacts at a time when the state’s economy is struggling to recover from the most serious economic downturn.”
State agencies only make rules when authorized to do so in a law passed by the legislature. Requiring ratification of proposed rules means they have to go through the entire lawmaking process all over again. Since over 2600 bills are filed each session and fewer than 400 become law, it is expected that few rules will make it through. Opponents of a rule will only have to persuade a committee chair not to agenda it to block its passage.
Rule-making is important because law sets policy without (usually) establishing all of the details to implement it. (See an example here: Phosphate Mine Reclamation) If agency rules are suspended pending ratification, there will be no way to enforce the law that authorized the rule in the first place.
There are already extensive safeguards in place to prevent agencies from overstepping their bounds, especially with respect to small businesses and small counties. Even the House staff analysis acknowledges that proposed rules must pass muster with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) to ensure the rule is a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority and that the costs it imposes are reasonable.
Not only that, agencies must prepare a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) that calculates how much it will cost business to comply, how much it will cost to enforce, and any costs to local governments and impacts on revenues. Further, if anyone has presented a lower-cost alternative to the proposed rule, the SERC must include that as well, and the agency must either adopt the alternative or give a detailed explanation of why not.
The staff analysis points out: “In addition to other required elements of a SERC, the bill requires the inclusion of an economic analysis of whether the proposed rule directly or indirectly is likely to have an adverse impact within five years after rule implementation, on Business competitiveness, including private-sector investment, productivity, innovation, or ability of persons doing business in Florida to compete with out-of-state businesses or domestic markets, in excess of $1 million in the aggregate.”
These requirements will increase the workload and expense for agencies and JAPC, making it harder for them to perform their core mission. It may require agencies to hire outside contractors to assist in preparing an increased number of SERCs covering significantly more material. The staff analysis notes that even businesses may suffer because of delays in review and ratification. Or, businesses may benefit if the delayed rule is hostile to their interests.
It will probably cost agencies considerably more than the ratification threshold of $200,000 per year to provide the added information.
Sierra Club Florida opposes overriding Gov. Crist’s veto of HB 1565. Contact incoming House Speaker Cannon dean.cannon@myfloridahouse.gov and incoming Senate President Haridopolos haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov and urge them not to put the override of 1565 on the special session agenda. If your local legislators were incumbents their emails are the same as last year. If they are new, their emails have not yet been assigned.
David J. Cullen
941-323-2404 (cell)
For seven years, we sought to focus a discussion about how Florida will grow. We hope it is a discussion that continues beyond today, which marks the end of the Florida Hometown Democracy movement. It is left to our state’s elected leaders and residents find an answer to Florida’s addiction to promiscuous construction before it is too late for our state’s natural resources and quality of life.
Thank you for your support and hard work, and for your passion and concern,
Lesley Blackner
President, Florida Hometown Democracy
Palm Beach PostWhy vote YES on Amendment 4? Simple. It would give decision-making power back to the people who have a vested interest in the future and growth of Florida - the voters.
We've all heard complaints about big government. This is a chance to take back some of that power, at least on a local level. We are allowing county commissioners to make exceptions to comprehensive land-use plans. By passing Amendment 4, the voters would decide if and when exceptions should be made. Passage of Amendment 4 would put more power in the hands of voters, not big-spending developers and opportunistic county commissioners.
If Amendment 4 does not pass, we will see suburban sprawl and urban decay as developers push westward. I moved to South Florida in the late 1960s. I've seen the development move north from Miami and west, like a cancer consuming every available parcel of land. For years, I've driven past displaced dead animals on the sides of the roads, as two lanes became four, then six.
It's time to put the brakes on this insanity, time to reevaluate quality-of-life issues. Exceptions to comprehensive land-use plans should be decided by the voters and not be put up for sale to the highest bidder.
MARY PRICHARD
West Palm Beach
Letters to the Editor for Monday, Oct. 25According to news reports, Rick Scott would support eliminating the state's land planning agency, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He claims, "It's really impacted people that want to build things; it's really killing jobs." House Speaker-designate Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, concurs, noting that DCA's functions could be distributed to other agencies.
Everyone should be sensitive to the need to create and maintain jobs. But blaming DCA for this state's economic woes is tragically misguided.
Since January 2007, DCA has approved comprehensive plan amendments that allow for 558,400 additional residential units and 1.43 billion square feet of nonresidential space, all of which remains unbuilt. On top of this, Florida is among the top three states in number of foreclosures, and has an existing vacant housing inventory of between 300,000 and 400,000 units.
What is really killing jobs in Florida is the fact that with so many vacant dwellings on the market, lenders are understandably unwilling to finance new construction. Once the economy rebounds and the inventory of overbuilt housing is sold, then there is plenty of opportunity for builders to construct the dwelling units and offices already approved by local governments and DCA.
While some candidates are channeling the rage felt by builders and developers, they fail to recognize the level of anger of average citizens who are fed up with the overcrowded roads and schools, sprawling development and degraded natural areas. Widespread public support for Amendment 4, which would require voter approval of each local comprehensive plan amendment, is but one manifestation.
Florida's growth-management laws help to protect sensitive natural areas from inappropriate development and rural areas from sprawling over-development, provide for greater coordination between local governments, balance local issues with state legislative priorities, require that infrastructure be in place to support new development and require citizen participation in the development review process. If Florida loses DCA or key portions of its growth-management laws, all of this could be in jeopardy.
CHARLES PATTISON
Tallahassee
Editor's note: Charles Pattison is president of 1000 Friends of Florida, which advocates for growth management.
NASA photo
Residents in Perry, Florida do not want sprawl and over-development
Forest Festival in Perry