This is a Miami-centric article, but will this not have some effect on our more Northerly concerns? ???
Quote
State dismantles growth-management laws
For a generation, a sharp and sometimes controversial line has contained Miami-Dade’s explosive urban growth like a gasket, largely insulating the county’s fragile agricultural hinterlands, surviving wetlands and two national parks from subdivisions and commercial-strip development.
Now the days of holding the line on the Urban Development Boundary â€" the focus of some of the fiercest local battles over growth and the environment â€" may be drawing to an end.
Measures approved by the Florida Legislature with little scrutiny or debate in the waning moments of this year’s session would dismantle the state oversight that has acted as the principal brake on repeated efforts by the county commission to breach the line for new development.
The measures, almost sure to be signed by business-friendly Gov. Rick Scott, would significantly water down the state’s 25-year-old growth-management system, giving counties and municipalities far greater freedom to amend the local comprehensive development plans that are meant to control suburban sprawl. The UDB, which runs along the inside of the county’s western and southern edges as well as its southeastern coastal fringe, is a key feature of Miami-Dade’s comp plan. Development outside the line is limited, in most areas, to one dwelling per five acres.
Given the Miami-Dade Commission’s history of voting repeatedly to alter its comp plan to move the line, UDB supporters say there would be little standing in elected officials’ way once the measures become law. They note the county recently fought for years to win approval of a Lowe’s Superstore outside the UDB over residents’ and state planners’ objections â€" and two vetoes by then-mayor Carlos Alvarez â€" before it was ultimately rejected by then-Gov. Charlie Crist and the state Cabinet, acting under existing growth-management law.
But that kind of challenge by residents will likely become significantly harder, if not impossible, under the approved bills, which in most cases would end state review of such local planning decisions. Backers of the overhaul, including business groups like the Florida Chamber of Commerce, contend that state growth rules have needlessly blocked or delayed development and the jobs it brings, and that such decisions are best left to local government.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/22/2226826/state-dismantles-growth-management.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1NGggzilw
(PS: If this has already been posted on the forum somewhere, please delete)
the spin you'll get from Tallahassee is that all they have done is removed state oversight...allowing local communities to decide for themselves how they should grow.
Well thank goodness we did not elect the man who wanted to sell our preservation lands.
Maybe Lowe's can now build a lovely store next to his exclusive gated community in West Florida. Or better yet let them put up a Wal-Mart. Wonder how he would like that?
This is a scary precident. IMO, Miami is what it is because of that line. If the line had not been so heavily guarded Miami would likely have consumed all of the Everglades by now....
If this passes I think it will mark a dark day in Florida's history.
Scott accomplished this under the guise of "job creation". Building more homes that consume our dwindling lands only to sit vacant is OK as long as it creates jobs. I guess we can never have too many empty gated subdivisions, Wal-Marts and strip malls.
Wow as if florida's city havent suffered enough from sprawl.
That's so smart! Make it easier to produce a product that is already a glut on the market.
Quote from: cline on May 24, 2011, 10:01:14 AM
Scott accomplished this under the guise of "job creation". Building more homes that consume our dwindling lands only to sit vacant is OK as long as it creates jobs. I guess we can never have too many empty gated subdivisions, Wal-Marts and strip malls.
What I do not get is who is going to pay for these jobs? these homes that sit empty, the land to build them on? Is this idea for Scott's personal gain ?
well giving Evil Rick Scott's belief that Florida's diverse industry should be house construction and tourism- then I guess he is foolishly doing what he does best.
In place since the Local Government Planning Act of 1973,Florida's Growth Management oversight did allow envision of 90 MILLION Floridians at "Buildout".
This not good enough for the boosters.
Current events nothing other than continuation of the 'conservative' narrative of decline.
Quote from: north miami on May 24, 2011, 02:17:18 PM
In place since the Local Government Planning Act of 1973,Florida's Growth Management oversight did allow envision of 90 MILLION Floridians at "Buildout".
actually the version of Growth Management that was repealed came to be in 1985
The biggest banks and mortgage companies now hold more than 872,000 homes titles as a result of the foreclosures in the USA. In two more years they will foreclose on one million more homes.
Gov. Scott and legislators want to see Florida back in the boom time construction business.They are willing to destroy regulations and protections in order to do it quickly. All that can happen at this point is county approvals that come with grandfathered development rights.
NY Times:
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/22/business/20110523_GLUT_graphic/20110523_GLUT_graphic-popup-v3.jpg)
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 24, 2011, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: north miami on May 24, 2011, 02:17:18 PM
In place since the Local Government Planning Act of 1973,Florida's Growth Management oversight did allow envision of 90 MILLION Floridians at "Buildout".
actually the version of Growth Management that was repealed came to be in 1985
Certainly however the events leading up to and including early 70's LGPA are significant.
The umbrella of "inevitable" forces telling.
Also telling is of course the total population growth envisioned under a system deemed by boosters as too constrictive.
I recall a Bob Graham administrationn staffer who basically freaked out over the implications of then long time ago 'projections' for the future.
QuoteCertainly however the events leading up to and including early 70's LGPA are significant.
The umbrella of "inevitable" forces telling.
That particular legislation from 1973 was window dressing in its purest form. Locally, the plan enacted under this legislation's mandate was a 'plan' in name only. It was not enforced and no impact fees were levied.
This inevitably led to explosive growth along Baymeadows and Mandarin. It was actually a sprawl-producing 'growth management' plan.
Hopefully our new mobility plan will save the day for growth in our area.