Amendment 4

[thelakelander]

^

Every six months, local elected officials can approve changes to their comp plans. While some are generated at the request of developers who want to, say, turn farmland into apartments, many if not most are generated by government planners for a wide variety of reasons, including to accommodate population growth, redevelop blighted areas, respond to state mandates or improve transportation.

Every seven years, localities are required to update the plans. In large cities, that generates dozens, sometimes hundreds, of often technical amendments hard to comprehend by non-professionals. Changes can be -- and often are -- rejected by regional and state planners.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/13/1872530_p3/amendment-4-question-could-change.html#ixzz13Nkh3paQ

The existing comp plans statewide are very sprawl happy.  In fact, most encourage it.  On the other hand, it will add another layer of difficulty for integrating sustainable infill into our spreadout environment since most comp plans don't allow high density and mixed uses.  This is why I keep saying it protects sprawl, to those who believe it will eliminate it.  

Then we need to address those problems with the plans in the next round of revisions which occur on a regular basis.  Knowing that the plan cannot be amended on a developers whim might make the regular revision much better.

Allowing sprawl to run rampant in the meantime is a huge risk considering a good number of proponents don't want pedestrian friendly development either.

In practical terms, it means voters would be regularly confronted with numerous comprehensive plan changes on a single ballot -- perhaps dozens, if critics are correct. Proponents contend these would be limited to the big and easy to grasp, such as land-use designation changes to allow a new subdivision outside Miami-Dade County's urban development boundary, or a new park, or a high-density, urban infill project like Midtown Miami.

Because of imprecise wording in the amendment, however, the state Supreme Court and the Florida Association of Counties have concluded those votes would also encompass comprehensive-plan elements as arcane as infrastructure improvements, including placement of sewer and drainage lines, traffic circulation plans and community design standards. The state says about 8,000 comp-plan amendments are approved by local governments each year in Florida.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/13/1872530/amendment-4-question-could-change.html#ixzz13Nljilzd

[tufsu1]

Then we need to address those problems with the plans in the next round of revisions which occur on a regular basis.  Knowing that the plan cannot be amended on a developers whim might make the regular revision much better.

Is it every five years or every ten years?

As Lake has noted, the regular updates (known as the Evaluation and Appraisal Report) occur every 7 years....followed by amendments to the comprehensive plan to implement the EAR...make no mistake, those would be subject to referendum if Amendment 4 were to pass.

[ChriswUfGator]

Moreover, the terms "Comprehensive Plan" and "Comprehensive Land Use Plan" are indeed interchangeable, and "Comprehensive Plan" is short for "Comprehensive Land Use Plan." The term is found in Florida's Statutes governing Land Use and Planning, so what kind of comprehensive plan are you suggesting the legislature was referring to, if not land use? A comprehensive plan for making the spiciest burrito?

really....where?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3164.html

notice here that there is a specific definition for the terms "comprehensive plan" and "land use"...I don't know of anywhere in statute where they are referenced as the same thing.

So then like I asked before, what is that statute for then? The Comprehensive Plan for making the spiciest burrito?

Did you even bother to read the title of the statute you just quoted?

Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act

You are seriously being asinine. Not that that's really any recent development...

[tufsu1]

yes....chris...I am well aware of what the title is...but, as I've stated sveral times, comprehensive planning in Florida involves more than just land use....just take a look at the list of required elemsnts.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3177.html

The problem with your argument is one of 2 things:

1. A city/county can nullify the effects of Amendment 4 by just renaming their plan

or

2. The entire plan (since you say comp. plan and comp. land use plan are interchangeable) is subject to referendum

So, step back and ask yourself...why would the authors of Amendment 4 write the ballot language the way they did?

[ChriswUfGator]

yes....chris...I am well aware of what the title is...but, as I've stated sveral times, comprehensive planning in Florida involves more than just land use....just take a look at the list of required elemsnts.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3177.html

The problem with your argument is one of 2 things:

1. A city/county can nullify the effects of Amendment 4 by just renaming their plan

or

2. The entire plan (since you say comp. plan and comp. land use plan are interchangeable) is subject to referendum

So, step back and ask yourself...why would the authors of Amendment 4 write the ballot language the way they did?

I disagree with #1, and to prove my point on that, I already posted the City of Neptune Beach's 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which is valid and is presently in effect. You argued that nothing named that could be legal, and you were quite clearly wrong. Not that you'll ever admit it.

Additionally, the terms "Comprehensive Plan" and "Comprehensive Land Use Plan" are most certainly interchangeable within the meaning of the statute. And please stop quoting back to me information that I initially provided to you back on page 11 of this thread, like the names of the required comp plan elements, and then pretending as though I didn't know what I was talking about and that you're now having to educate me. For christsakes I was the one who originally posted it;

Dude....the city of st pete just tried to do this....wanted to adopt something called the comprehensive future land use plan.....as a way of trying to minimizing the changes that could occur....DCA wouldn't let them because there was nothing in Floridaa Statutes allowing it

You're the lawyer....I gave you the statue #....read it

So, again, if there is no such thing, then what's that Comprehensive Land Use Plan that I just posted?

Here let me post it again;

http://www.ci.neptune-beach.fl.us/misc_pdfs/CompPlan06.pdf

Secondly, F.S. 163.3177 specifically authorizes Comprehensive Land Use Plans, divided according to statute into elements, which should consist of a future land use element, a traffic circulation element, a utilities element, a conservation element, a recreation element, a housing element, and an intergovernmental cooperation element. All of these elements together constitute what's called a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. You're trying to say that the elements are called X, Y, or Z, and that's fine, but the combined document that includes all the elements is indeed a Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

Here's the statute in the public domain if anyone wants to read it;

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3177.html

And I'm not a lawyer yet, I'm still waiting on C&F clearance and have to be sworn in.

These debates with you get so tedious, because every few pages you start trying to pretend as though the other person didn't know what they were talking about, or act as though you never said the things that you said, which forces anyone in any discussion with you into tediously searching the forum in order to constantly quote you back to yourself. It's getting old.

I also am not sure that #2 would automatically be a bad thing, and I think that the conclusion that you're suggesting is really just "sky is falling" hysteria. The current comp plans have provisions for more than enough growth as it sits, and this isn't going to bring development to any screeching halt, as everyone apparently wants to argue. There seems to be this misconception, which you're doing nothing to dispel, that when aunt sally wants to put up a new mailbox it will require a voter referendum.

And P.S., I think the amendment is titled what it is titled because it refers to Comprehensive Land Use Plans, which really has nothing to do with your failed and incorrect argument that no such thing exists.

[tufsu1]

Chris,

Check this out

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1130872.ece

That's partly because cities and counties don't have plans titled "comprehensive land use plan." Every city and county has a state-required "comprehensive plan," a lengthy document to guide growth.

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris,

Check this out

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1130872.ece

That's partly because cities and counties don't have plans titled "comprehensive land use plan." Every city and county has a state-required "comprehensive plan," a lengthy document to guide growth.

Silly semantics.

"Comp Plan" is unquestionably short for "Comprehensive Land Use Plan." This argument, and that of the off-base editorial you cited, is retarded. Here is an example from a Attorney General of Florida opinion letter. Note the highlighted terminology...

Therefore, it is my opinion that development on property owned by a district school board that is situated within the county must comply with the county's comprehensive land-use plan adopted pursuant to the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act and ordinances adopted to implement the plan, provided that the local land-use plan or the development permits required thereunder do not relate to or regulate the same subject as the Florida Building Code and Florida Fire Prevention Code.[7]

Sincerely,

Charlie Crist
Attorney General

CC/tgh

http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/00FDB36DD2C7820B85256F10005F5268

Come on Tufsu, this horse is dead. Time to get off already.