A friend of mine called me up the other day. He told me about an ad pushing amendment 4 and how the Sierra Club is backing it. I did a bit of quick reading through it and 4 looks like it will cost lots of $$ and jobs in the long run. It also looks like it will bog down many projects by forcing them to go through a long drawn out process of public review and referendum votes. That sounds just like what the environmental lobby ordered. A plan to make it so hard to move forward that nothing can be accomplished. Since they cant have it their way they will try to make it so nothing will get done. As much as I was raised environmentally conscious and as much as I want to see reasonable environmental protections I now realize how much special interest groups are hijacking the future of our state. Just on general principals I have come to hate the Audubon and Sierra Club. They have almost made me into an anti-environmentalist. Shame on them. Its not just in our state either. All over the country narrow minded environmental lobbies are subverting the original spirit and integrity of what once were noble organizations. Check out what 4 is all about here......
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Comprehensive_Land_Use_Plans,_Amendment_4_(2010)
Then vote against more unnecessary red tape and control by the narrow minded environmental lobby.
VOTE NO ON 4
Development is evil.
Does that include Nocatee? Oak Leaf Plantation? Bartram Springs?
Or just the JTB corridor?
Does Springfield/Riverside/Avondale/Ortega/San Marco count as well planned development?
Quote from: stephendare on October 23, 2010, 08:25:29 AM
Quote from: buckethead on October 23, 2010, 08:22:44 AM
Does Springfield/Riverside/Avondale/Ortega/San Marco count as well planned development?
Actually they were amazingly well planned, with embedded transit, decentralized commercial distribution, public spaces and parks, amenities, drainage and schools.
Even more amazingly they were completely constructed using private funds.
I agree that those projects are well planned but not sure who paid for the infrastructure. Did the developers of Springfield and Riverside (@ 1880), Avondale and San Marco (@ 1920) pay for construction of streets and utilities in those neighborhoods? Schools?
Back to the original thread - poorly planned development is a problem but Amendment Four is NOT the solution. Requiring that voters approve every development that contemplates a change in our comprehensive plan is ridiculous. This proposal will cost local governments (and thereby the taxpayers) millions of dollars in voting costs alone. The only projects likely to be approved will be exactly those that proponents of Amendment Four complain about: huge well funded sprawl like Nocatee, whose developers can afford to mount a Rick Scott-like marketing campaign. Voters should solve the problem of poorly planned development by electing public officials who will protect their interests.
The Ortega Company built The Ortega Traction Company (STREETCAR) from the center of the development to Aberdeen Street. Can you imagine Jackson Square extending the Skyway down to the center of the development?
Ever read what Flagler did whenever he hit town as he built his railroad down the east coast? First order of business was to create a waterworks, sewer system, streets and sidewalks, electric light plant with street lighting, public buildings, a hotel (or two or three), parks, parkways, bridges, schools, and oh yeah, a railroad station, yard, and service facilities... Makes one wonder how much of the Nocatee development, the developer is building out of pocket.
OCKLAWAHA
"Since they can't have it their way they will try to make it so nothing will get done."
You have perfectly described the Rebuplicans in Congress since Obama's election.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3439339094_834e43f2fc.jpg)
Not enough concrete? Anyone at NOCATEE want to send me a message?
People should vote yes on 4. The current mode of development in this state absolutely fleeces the taxpayers and causes unsustainable sprawl problems. It's ludicrous and needs to stop.
Amendment 4 doesn't sound like a great idea to me but the extent to which the 'No on 4' campaign has run worries me. It's very clearly not a grassroots campaign; you can tell there is a lot of money and experience that has gone in to it. Plus, their website doesn't really describe what the actual amendment proposes to do, it just says why they think you shouldn't vote for it.
If passed, Amendment 4 will become a lawyer's cash cow. The Comprehensive Plan amendment process in place now is corrupt, but Amendment 4 won't fix it. It will only make it worse. What will fix it is citizen involvement and electing public officials who represent you, not developers.
And the Yes on 4 people worry me as well because to me they are letting their emotions take over rationality. Also there are some groups behind the Yes on 4 that worry me just as much (some large legal firms in S FL and environmentalist groups). I sympathize more with business and development than those two groups, but I know that we can still do better. Amendment 4 will solve nothing and may bring harm/conflict to the state.
Turning "NO" Upside down
Here is a vivid example of the credible driving force behind # 4
(And to understand yes/no on #4 one must understand the current process,core public involvement in Future Land Use Map by state rule.Few do.)
Per David Wiles-recent former St.Johns County Planning & Zoning member:
"....the important aspect that has been forgotten is that the May 2000 Future Land Use Map estimate passed by St.Johns 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 same time each of those DRI applications was 'sold' to the county (via Planners & Consultants, a vast under reported subject-N.Miami) as 'build it,they will come' and 'inevitable growth' faith statements.
Speaking of Nocatee, they're paying for a significant amount in terms of infrastructure, schools, public spaces, etc. Developments like that aren't the problem. The major problem is the smaller hodge podge projects popping up along corridors like Baymeadows, Hodges and Beach Boulevards. These are the things that really don't pay their way and will still be allowed regardless of the Amendment 4 results.
lake you do have a point! Nocatee is something different from the normal developements, they basically put everything into place! Makes sense, since there was nothing there but tree's to begin with.........don't agree with it, but if they can sell them, more power to them! One thing they did not take into account was a possible rail tie in, but thats their problem!
^I'm not crazy about the Nocatees and Oakleafs world but at least they attempt to pay something and donate land for public space and education. This can't be said of the little strip malls, fast food restaurants and developments that attempt to pop up on old golf courses along already congested roads. Although there is not rail (there's none in any development locally), Nocatee does set up nice for a commuter rail station at CR 210.
Yes...........know all about that! DR Horton tried to get a zoning change done on Bay Meadows for a possible "Golden Corral" on old Bay Meadows Golf Course! Too bad that Golden Corral was not interested nor was even thinking about it..............but DR was bound and determined to get a zoning change done! Idiots! All most 3K people in this particular region and they try to play games like this!