Amendment 4

[tufsu1]

I would also argue that Florida's tax burden is not high at all....take a look...

1. we have no personal impact taxes
2. business taxes aren't that high (contrary to Rick Scott's claims) which is why we are the 4th friendliest state for business.
3. we have the fewest # of state employees per capita of any state (so we are sure aren't spending much)

Now, where we do fall short....Floridians pay far more for transportation that many other states...which is why, even with relatively low housing costs, our combined housing/transportation costs are quite high....but of course, very little of that is a tax burden

[tufsu1]

agreed...but some on this site seem to argue that Florida's sprawl development is far worse than other states...if that is the case, and the costs of that development form is high, shouldn't our tax burden be also be higher than other states?

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris...it would be really good if you knew what you were talking about....urban planners do all kinds of work...mine has been predominently public sector (almost entirely public for the last few years)...so no, Amendment 4 would not directly impact "my living"

Now....indirectly, it could affect everyone in Florida...perhaps you haven't noticed the effect of the rapid halt to development (whether good or bad) on our state's overall economy?

That would hurt, if it didn't come from the person who argued with me for two pages that there was no such thing as a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and that you couldn't even name anything that or the State wouldn't approve it. Which argument came to a screeching halt when I posted an actual Comprehensive Land Use Plan on the forum for you. LMAO...

Seriously, your whole industry is reliant on development to some extent, because our current mode of development in this state is essentially that the developer makes all the money and the taxpayers then have to pay to build all the infrastructure to support the private development.

[ChriswUfGator]

agreed...but some on this site seem to argue that Florida's sprawl development is far worse than other states...if that is the case, and the costs of that development form is high, shouldn't our tax burden be also be higher than other states?

We provide less services than other states, and therefore require less revenue per capita, and we have the highest rate, or one of the highest rates, of tourism of any state, meaning our expenditures can be supported through a sales tax. That doesn't add up to the conclusion you're pointing towards.

[simms3]

I have to ask because I am clearly the idiot, but what services do other states provide that we don't provide?

And something I have noticed about Jacksonville is that our roads are in much better shape than other metros (outside the state), our police drive new Malibus or whatever they are, our busses are brand new, our utilities are extremely cheap, like someone else said taxes in Jax are extremely low and they are low in the state (I know that tourists pick up a larger tab, but not in Jax), and the list goes.  I think there are pension problems all over the damn country.  Corruption and these sort of problems are far more rampant in norther, high-taxed, dense cities like Chicago/NE Cities, and I am trying to figure out what services Jacksonvillians are not getting that they should be getting due to the taxes they pay.

I am not trying to say we should have rampant growth and I hate sprawl myself, but having a balance between better planned sprawl and urban infill development is necessary (not everyone wants to live in Springfield or Riverside, in fact most in Jax do not).  Also, I am in favor of good regulations, not in slaughtering potential business.  Also, who honestly thinks that Amendment 4 will kill the big Nocatee style developments?  While demand to live in Florida has come to a halt because of FL's reliance on fickle industries, when the economy eventually turns around people will be looking seriously at Jacksonville (more than other FL metros) and they will be moving with their families from crowded urban environments up north or from S FL.  Some may want a Riverside/Avondale lifestyle (and those neighborhoods are mostly built up and infill is hard to build due to their overlay and historic status), but most will want a family community in the burbs.  Big development firms/FI's will easily overcome Amendment 4 regulations.  Easily.  Nothing will change, there will just be a 2 week period each year after the vote when we find out all the communities that got approved (instead of spaced throughout the year without a vote).

[tufsu1]

That would hurt, if it didn't come from the person who argued with me for two pages that there was no such thing as a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and that you couldn't even name anything that or the State wouldn't approve it. Which argument came to a screeching halt when I posted an actual Comprehensive Land Use Plan on the forum for you. LMAO...

Seriously, your whole industry is reliant on development to some extent, because our current mode of development in this state is essentially that the developer makes all the money and the taxpayers then have to pay to build all the infrastructure to support the private development.

Chris....you found one plan called the "Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan" (pronoun)...I said there was no such thing in Florida law as a comprehensive future land use plan (noun)....if you were right, cities like Neptune Beach could just rename their plan and avoid Amendment 4....I sure hope your legal arguments are better when you're in practice.

As for costs, many large developments pay more their fair share (and more)...I suggest you do some research on DCA's Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM)...the problem, as I said earlier, is with smaller development that slip under the radar (like de minimus impacts in concurrency)

[ChriswUfGator]

That would hurt, if it didn't come from the person who argued with me for two pages that there was no such thing as a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and that you couldn't even name anything that or the State wouldn't approve it. Which argument came to a screeching halt when I posted an actual Comprehensive Land Use Plan on the forum for you. LMAO...

Seriously, your whole industry is reliant on development to some extent, because our current mode of development in this state is essentially that the developer makes all the money and the taxpayers then have to pay to build all the infrastructure to support the private development.

Chris....you found one plan called the "Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan" (pronoun)...I said there was no such thing in Florida law as a comprehensive future land use plan (noun)....if you were right, cities like Neptune Beach could just rename their plan and avoid Amendment 4....I sure hope your legal arguments are better when you're in practice.

As for costs, many large developments pay more their fair share (and more)...I suggest you do some research on DCA's Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM)...the problem, as I said earlier, is with smaller development that slip under the radar (like de minimus impacts in concurrency)

It was a Comprehensive Land Use Plan as authorized by Fla. Statutes. I don't know where you keep getting the word "future" from. The plans aren't titled that and I never said that word. At least get your quotes straight tufsu. This isn't even my argument, comp plans are specifically authorized by statute and that's what they're called. Geez.

[north miami]

Also, who honestly thinks that Amendment 4 will kill the big Nocatee style developments? 

  **** Well,in fact quite possibly! ****

The more one understands current rule the more one understands the driver behind # 4.

(Not that anyone is alone in a weak grasp of the process- as an upper level State Conservation organization board member I basically flew blind and amidst a great learning cure while engaging in regional growth management public participation episodes from during the late 90's on in to about two years ago.)

Nocatee, officially born through substantial deviation of the Future Land Use Map plan, is a classic #4 Poster Child

  ** Here is an excerpt, a recent note from former St.Johns County  Planning & Zonning Commission member David Wiles: **

"...the important aspect that has been forgotten is that the May 2000 Future Land Use Map (FLUM) estimate passed by St.Johns County PZA and BCC would likely been pretty close to actual housing needs (a year was spent calculating for each quadrant).But the 2002-2006 DRI frenzy was done with each of the multiple Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan recommended as "coherent","compatible" and "consistent" with the initial legal benchmark.At the time each of those DRI applications was "sold" to the county (***) as "build it,they will come" and "Inevitable growth" faith statements."

(***) to the above I would interject here we see the largely unreported provocative role of "Planners & Consultants"-N.Miami

Some may recall the "SAY NO TO NOCATEE" buttons. #4 would allow the discourse to rise above the inevitably doomed response via button and bumper sticker.

[simms3]

Adequate fire and police protection, educational systems that havent been diaccredited and forcibly desegregated.  Research Universities, Public Arts, Mass Transit, agricultural services to the rural areas, basic t-comm infrastructure, environmental services, and um social services to the poor.

Fire/Police - can't claim to know whether we are behind on fire/police...but it seems at least apparently that we have adequate services there in Jax and statewide.

Education - Agree about education but Atlanta's taxes for its public schools are like 3x ours and Atlanta's schools are still miserable.  Just as an example.  Statewide we pay such low taxes that I think there may be a corellation between our dismal ranking and our shoddy school system.

Research universities run on federal grants and large endowments.  I know this because I go to a research university, one of the best.  At one point, though I don't know right now, our endowment was equal to the endowment of every university in FL combined and then some.  It has fallen significantly recently to around $1.5 billion which is still absurdly high for a public institution (UF's is around $650-750 million, maybe less now).  The ivy's receive anywhere from $250M to $600M a year in public grants.  And of course being top tier private research schools their endowments run anywhere from $4B-$28B.

Public Arts - Should the state be involved or should it be left to communities and cities?  While I think we in NE FL have the best arts scene in FL (perhaps outside of St. Pete) I realize it is mostly due to private contributions.  I think we can bolster the arts more and I agree.

Mass transit - Obviously agree here.  Lots of mass transit projects are largely funded by the feds, though.

Agricultural Services - don't know much about them, but it seems that FL has one of the largest agricultural industries in the country behind CA and a couple of corn/wheat states.  Is it really that bad?

T-comm - I know a good amount of people that would argue that with you.  I don't think we are in the bottom 60-70% there.  I know Jax itself is surprisingly wired.

Environmental Services - this is where I agree with you the most.  The state needs to whine to the feds more to get the ball rolling on fixing all of our huge problems.  This is largely in the feds' hands, too.

Social services to the poor - no offense but when I look at states with lots of social services for the poor and huge welfare/pension issues, I don't necessarily want to follow suit from an economic standpoint.  States like New York, NJ, IL, and California come to mind.

[simms3]

Also, obviously Nocatee is the most significant sprawl PUD ever built in NE FL (and it is almost entirely as of yet unbuilt).  Can we come up with other more specific examples of communities that would most likely have not gotten approved under Amendment 4?

And can one tell me why these communities would not have gotten approved since it is hard to know exactly how the public in St. Johns, Clay, and Duval would sway since it will be more in their hands than "rule"?

And North Miami, let's say I agree with you on Amendment 4.  I would take it a step further and just say that suburban bedroom counties should pass their own version of it.  Duval county is the urban "hub" "core" county.  I would be hesitant to pass something in a county that varies so drastically with each district and that serves as the hub of a region.  St. Johns County is more consistently sprawl/resort communities with a more homogeneous group of citizens.  Duval County succumbing to Amendment 4 would have more turmoil since it is so much larger population wise and already pretty built up.

If I had to guess, urbanites who want more infill and density should be weary of "4" because in Duval and urban areas new developments might also be stymied.

Let's say Amendment 4 has no bearing on mass transit and a commuter system or streetcar system gets built.  Does that still guarantee that the general populace will vote in favor of super high density TODs?  I am sure because of the power of developers of major TODs and the logic of them they would still get built, but there is no guarantee.

I would rather have a concrete plan that allows for the various styles of development than a system left entirely to voters and up for constant change or no change.

[CS Foltz]

simms3..........I agree with you to a point! From my understanding of Amendment 4, yes the voters will have the authority to say yea or nay and in the absence of elected officials doing the job they were voted into office for, what other choice is there? If 4 is done on a county by county basis....who better to understand just what is to take place and what it will cost overall? I do not live in St Johns, I live in Duval and understand there are limits to the infrasturcture......one size does not fit all and people do have a choice as to where they live! Simple economics......what you can afford and where,taking into account school districts (if they are looking for enough ahead)

[ChriswUfGator]

If I had to guess, urbanites who want more infill and density should be weary of "4" because in Duval and urban areas new developments might also be stymied.

I doubt it's going to be an issue, as land in an urban core is already zoned for high intensity uses.

[thelakelander]

If the Mobility Plan changes go through it will be less of an issue.  However, make no doubt about it, infill and density would have a more difficult time getting approved by the public than the St. Johns Town Centers of the world under the current comp plan.  Outside of South Florida, where they simply don't have the land, this is most likely the case in our sprawl happy state.

[ChriswUfGator]

If the Mobility Plan changes go through it will be less of an issue.  However, make no doubt about it, infill and density would have a more difficult time getting approved by the public than the St. Johns Town Centers of the world under the current comp plan.  Outside of South Florida, where they simply don't have the land, this is most likely the case in our sprawl happy state.

I don't really follow you.

If the electorate winds up being upset enough about sprawl to vote for this amendment, then what makes you think that once the amendment passes that the same electorate would then turn around and do a 180 turn and begin voting for more sprawl? That's kind of nonsensical. I doubt it will pass, but if it does, I am not sure what would make the same people do a complete 180. Because what you're saying is that they're going to vote to approve sprawl and not urban development, which is contrary to the intent of the sponsors of this amendment, and would be contrary to the intent of everyone voting for it. Why would everyone do the exact opposite of what they just voted for?

Just seems a little "sky is falling" to me...

[thelakelander]

There's nothing to really follow.  Sprawl won't be stopped from this Amendment.  Our comp plans are one of the main things driving sprawl so I'm having a difficult time understanding how people are coming to the conclusion that amendment 4 will kill it.  If anything, it will protect it. 

I'm writing a few articles for the front page right now but when I get some time I'll try and get a comp plan map up showing land already vested for sprawl under the current plan.  Unless Amendment 4 will demand cities across the state reverse existing sprawl stimulating comp plans for denser sustainable development, sprawl is here to stay as long as the market supports it.