"Amendment 4 is a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot requiring future land use map or comprehensive plan changes to be approved by voters in a referendum, not by local officials who (amendment advocates say) may be influenced or misled by developers."
This is absolutely the worst amendment that could ever happen to the state. It would be extremely costly to local governments and stop just about any and all development while leaving most permitting to uninformed citizens who would have no idea on how to vote on permiting issues they have no experience in.
The idea of the amendment sounds good, but in reality if passed, it would be a great disaster for everyone.
While we know sprawl is not really a good idea, this amendment is definitely not the way to help stop it.
Quote from: British Shoe Company on February 20, 2010, 07:22:56 PM
The voters will have control if passed.
Developers cannot buy us off.
sadly the opposite may be true...elction history shows that those with the $ often win...imagine the effect of a well funded developer PR campaign.
Vote NO on Amendment 4 - Florida counties that have enacted similar legislation are all trying to unwind it now, because it has created a local nightmare: huge expense to local government and delays in getting beneficial land use changes made.
There is a reason our nation was founded as a representative republic.
The voters will have control if passed.
Developers cannot buy us off.
Do the voters know what is best?
Based on just going to the local zoning meetings and the things that go through city council, this amendment would indeed be a nightmare. Let's not forget that zoning pretty much only exists to protect land values as it is. It is tough enough insuring a few "experts" have a clue, so getting the general public educated enough to make those decisions would be impossible. The developer that mounts the best PR campaign will win every time regardless of true merit, effectively “buying off†the public with false promises and misinformation.
Quote from: strider on February 22, 2010, 10:46:00 AM
Based on just going to the local zoning meetings and the things that go through city council, this amendment would indeed be a nightmare. Let's not forget that zoning pretty much only exists to protect land values as it is. It is tough enough insuring a few "experts" have a clue, so getting the general public educated enough to make those decisions would be impossible. The developer that mounts the best PR campaign will win every time regardless of true merit, effectively “buying off†the public with false promises and misinformation.
Exactly right.
Is it time for some of the posters here to declare a special interest? Who here is involved in the real estate development/sales or planning industry? I am not involved in any of these, are you?
Let's look at the history of the evolution of comprehensive plans. In order to bring some sort of order and control of real estate development, the State of Florida required each country to develop a "comprehensive" plan of land use; this area was going to be set aside for industrial development, that for housing, the other for agriculture. You weren't going to be allowed anymore to drop 200 hundred houses in the middle of a pine plantation and then demand that roads, etc. were to be built to it.
There was a systematic way of amending these plans for changes in land use, but it required examination and commenting on the proposed change by staff in several departments; Water Management Districts, planning departments, State EPA, etc. This input was to be considered by the elected officials on the county commissions who would then approve or disapprove of the change to the comprehensive plan.
The practical result, over the years, was the complete corruption of the process, the agencies and the elected officials at all levels by development interests so that the comprehensive plan amendment process has become no barrier at all to the same kind of piecemeal sprawl that the whole process was designed to stop in the first place.
So currently, the comprehensive plan process is a complete joke and we have deeply embedded corruption in our agencies and elected bodies. Does the name Tom Manuel sound familiar?
Amendment 4 may not be a perfect solution, but when a whole process is corrupted isn't it time for the people to take back the power that they gave to elected officials who are now abusing that delegated power?
Dog Walker...I agree that the system has been corripted...by special interests on all sides...so why does Amendment 4 only bring to the voters plans or amendments that have been approved by the governing body....why not let us also vote to overturn a denial?
The answer to this question is simple....the primary purpose of Amendment 4 is to get to "NO".
It may be a good way to slow sprawl. Remember the larger the group making the decision the less that gets done.
You haven't answered my first question, either! So I will answer it for you. As a planner and employee of Reynold, Smith and Hills, (RSH now?) you have an interest in things staying as they are.
Of course the purpose of Amendment 4 is to get to NO! If we don't say no to what has been going on for the past twenty years we are going to continue to get exactly the same sort of development that has gotten us into our "water wars", outer beltway, traffic jammed, foreclosed, over-taxed, under schooled present situation. We need to make it really hard to keep on with business as usual and Amendment 4 will do that.
Land, water and the rest of our environment are not an infinite resource. We need to say NO until smart and properly educated people such as yourself are forced to come up with different, less destructive ways of doing business. The better models are out there and you know them. We just need to say NO until you start using them.
Quote from: Dog Walker on February 22, 2010, 11:49:29 AM
You haven't answered my first question, either! So I will answer it for you. As a planner and employee of Reynold, Smith and Hills, (RSH now?) you have an interest in things staying as they are.
I assume you're talking about me...if so, I do not work for RS&H
But feel free to read what the professional planning organization in Florida thinks about Hometown Democracy...btw, APA Florida represents over 3,000 practicing planners in the state...most of which work for local governments and are in the trenches of this debate every day.
http://www.floridaplanning.org/hometown/index.asp
Apologies, I thought you did work for RSH, but you are a planner for development interests are you not?
Of course APA opposes Amendment 4. An appeal to numbers (40 million Frenchmen can't be wrong) is a poor argument by the way and is one of the classical fallacies. Or did you intend it as an appeal to authority; another classical fallacy.
APA's members don't want to have their professional opinions and plans subject to review by an ignorant public. How demeaning. What a blow to professional pride. What a blow to your paychecks when development is slowed.
Opposition to Amendment 4 is coming from the special interests who have deeply embedded reasons to keep the system as it is. Money.
Quote from: Dog Walker on February 22, 2010, 11:49:29 AM
Of course the purpose of Amendment 4 is to get to NO!
Scary. Not all development is bad. Amendment 4 will indiscriminately prevent development, good and bad.
Stephen...Planners (and APA Florida as an advocacy and professional development organization) are involved in the development and real estate indusry....so yes, we bear some responsibility...but I would argue that every person in Florida is responsible (at some level) for the landscape we have today.
I think what Miss Fix It is trying to say is that ANY development might be stopped as part of Amendment 4....here are some examples
a. A new convention center downtown
b. Expansion of the VA Clinic in Springfield
c. New residential development (infill) in the urban core.
APA Florida is developing a presentation that includes some statewide examples of projects that could be considered "good planning" that required comp. plan land use (LU) amendments...these include:
1. a 16-acre waterfront park in Port St. Joe (LU change from Industrial to Recreation)
2. new downtown arena complex in Orlando (LU change from Office to Urban Activity Center)
3. new schools (often LU is changed to Public or Institutional)
4. other public facilities (fire stations, hospitals, sewer plants, etc. often require LU changes)
5. historic resources (LU for cemetery in Port St. Joe was changed to protect it)
These types of projects could be in jeopardy if Amendment 4 passes.
Chip, you say that all development will come to a halt if Amendment 4 is passed. Does all this development truly violate the local comprehensive plan? We would have no growth if we followed our comprehensive plan? Amazing!
Are you saying that voters are so ignorant that they cannot decide what kind of community development they think is worthwhile paying taxes to support? After all those ignorant voters will have to pay for the roads, sewers, schools, police and fire and various government amenities to support most of those comprehensive plan changes, right?
I feel pretty insulted by some of these comments. Pay up and shut up, right?
Quote from: Dog Walker on February 22, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
APA's members don't want to have their professional opinions and plans subject to review by an ignorant public. How demeaning. What a blow to professional pride. What a blow to your paychecks when development is slowed.
That is not the motivating factor for planners...we already have our opinions and plans reviewed and often thrown away by decision makers (elected officials).
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 22, 2010, 01:27:47 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on February 22, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
APA's members don't want to have their professional opinions and plans subject to review by an ignorant public. How demeaning. What a blow to professional pride. What a blow to your paychecks when development is slowed.
That is not the motivating factor for planners...we already have our opinions and plans reviewed and often thrown away by decision makers (elected officials).
And I was being a bit sarcastic. I have known many, many good reports from planners recommending that a change to the comp plan NOT be approved only to be overruled by developer controlled elected officials. That has to burn the pride a good deal. It is also the reason that the Directors of the Water Management Districts now have the SOLE authority to approve or deny any applications. Too often the staffs of the districts were saying things to the Boards of the Districts that the developers didn't want them to hear. Now they only have to get to the director rather than the whole board and now the staffs are stifled.
Here is the full text of Amendment 4. I'll provide my thoughts later, after you all have a chance to digest this.
FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT:
Article II, Section 7. Natural resources and scenic beauty of the Florida
Constitution is amended to add the following subsection:
Public participation in local government comprehensive land use planning benefits
the conservation and protection of Florida’s natural resources and scenic beauty,
and the long-term quality of life of Floridians. Therefore, before a local
government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a
comprehensive land use plan, such proposed plan or plan amendment shall be
subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following
preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body as
provided by general law, and notice thereof in a local newspaper of general
circulation. Notice and referendum will be as provided by general law. This
amendment shall become effective immediately upon approval by the electors of
Florida.
For purposes of this subsection:
1. “Local government†means a county or municipality.
2. “Local government comprehensive land use plan†means a plan to guide and
control future land development in an area under the jurisdiction of a local
government.
3. “Local planning agency†means the agency of a local government that is
responsible for the preparation of a comprehensive land use plan and plan
amendments after public notice and hearings and for making recommendations to
the governing body of the local government regarding the adoption or amendment
of a comprehensive land use plan.
4. “Governing body†means the board of county commissioners of a county, the
commission or council of a municipality, or the chief elected governing body of a
county or municipality, however designated.
the oddest part of the language is the term "comprehensive land use plan"....taken literally, these don't exist as comprehensive plans in Florida have a Future Land Use Eleemnt....however, the authors of the amendment take a much broader view and interpet it as referring to any plan affecting land use.
Well we have the internet now lets just vote online and not have a representavie republic. So every time someone watches Glen Beck or Al Franken they will be able to cast their informed vote, brillant.
"Local Government Land Use Plan"? We don't have anything like that other than the master plan used by developers to enhance their profits! I mean get real here.......we are driven by developers whether or not we acknowledge that..........malls, houses, condos, marina's, sprawl! There is no overseeing entity other than the allmighty dollar! FDOT, in their infinite wisdom, just wants to build more roads, more concrete and oh by the way lets make this one a toll road! Get some rail going and build off of it..............not Rat Rail style but something that could be actual mass transit............but I digress........I say "Yes" since this is a opportunity for those with some sense to reign in developers who can not bamboozle me!
ok CS...try this one....in order to implement SunRail (not ratrail), several local governments had to amend their comprehensive plan...both transportation/capital improvements elements to include the line and the land use element to create density at stations.
would this have passed if it went to referendum....or would central Florida be stuck with more roads?
Stephendare, your a straight shooter.
Who works where?
What are the positives of #4, and the negatives of #4
Sea ya
Any poll or data on whether or not this will pass?
#4 envisions returning to basics established in the 1970's Local Government Planning Act.
The Citizens have a role,decide on future land use.This reflected in FLUM-Future Land Use Map.
FLUM updated per routine schedule.
We have seen a rash of FLUM amendments,the rising role of ardent developer pressure,often implemented through friendly sounding Planners & Consultants and other elements to the point that the general outline desired by the public has been lost.
(St.Johns County is a dandy example-though lost on most.Citizens operating in such vacuum often grow to become leaders in the #4 concept)
Amendment # 4 simply restores the definitive role of the Citizen.
There is a significant amount of future vested development already commited for.
People take a stand according to where they sit and the source of specific high profile opposition to #4 is telling.
north miami..........I agree! The more I think on this, the more I am leaning in the "Yes" side of the equation! Getting something, that voters have to approve, just circumvents elected official rubber stamping and there is where I do not agree with what is taking place. Concordance is just one tool and often not even used for an effected area but somewhere else........who makes that call, our elected officials. If you can not depend on the elected ones, court of last resort is the electorat....good or bad, the people have the last say!
ok folks...here's what is going to happen if Amendment 4 passes....the Legislature will basically wipe out Growth Management and Comp. Planning laws and start all over.....now while that actully seems like an admirable idea (and our laws seriously need a rewrite), do you trust the Legislature to get it right?
If approved, when would it actually become law?
I almost fell out of my chair the other day when I received an email from the NE FL Assoc of Realtor's governmental affairs director regarding Amendment 4 describing the opposition as a "grassroots coalition" working to defeat A4. I simply had to respond to her that describing a group made up of Florida's development interests was about as far from grassroots as physically possible and to describe it as such was ludicrous.
I am a Realtor specializing in Jax's downtown n'hoods, but first and foremost I grew up as a birdwatcher, majored in forestry and conservation and worked for The Nature Conservancy. Of course the powerful development interests want to see it defeated, heaven forbid that all the tax money that existing neighborhoods have paid into the system come back to keep up existing infrastructure when they believe we should be subsidizing unsustainable development on Florida's existing natural or agricultural lands.
The whole comprehensive plan process has been corrupted with disastrous results for our state. Just look at Nocatee which has an entirely new designation created for it to exist...New Town. Right in the middle of tens of thousands of acres of active timberland. I'm pretty sure that is exactly what the comp plan was designed to prevent. Amend. 4 might not be perfect but anything has got to be better than the fetid mess we have now.
Quote from: billy on September 30, 2010, 01:01:17 PM
If approved, when would it actually become law?
some believe immediately...others believe that the Legislature would be required to enact rules (which means next July at the earliest).
The more I think about this the more I fail to see the downside in voting yes.
Awesome quote in Abel Harding's column in the T-U today:
“Direct democracy is the crack cocaine of government. It feels really good while you’re doing it, but you’re left wondering 'What did I just do?’â€
- Sean Snaith, director of the Institute for Economic Competitiveness at the University of Central Florida, in response to a question on Amendment 4 at Wednesday’s JCCI Annual Meeting.
Quote from: floridaforester on September 30, 2010, 01:13:59 PM
I almost fell out of my chair
The whole comprehensive plan process has been corrupted with disastrous results for our state. Just look at Nocatee which has an entirely new designation created for it to exist...New Town. Right in the middle of tens of thousands of acres of active timberland. I'm pretty sure that is exactly what the comp plan was designed to prevent.
Nocatee was in fact a direct assault on established St.Johns County Future Land Use Map.
And "they" got away with it,and ushered in a mad rush of substantial deviation.
I suggested that the rush was to get the credits while the 'gettin was good...and it just kept going on and on.
And the fact that these details are "news" in late 2010 is but one hint to the grave situation and needed call for definitive action.
Quote from: riverside planner on September 30, 2010, 02:44:08 PM
Awesome quote in Abel Harding's column in the T-U today:
“Direct democracy is the crack cocaine of government. It feels really good while you’re doing it, but you’re left wondering 'What did I just do?’â€
- Sean Snaith, director of the Institute for Economic Competitiveness at the University of Central Florida, in response to a question on Amendment 4 at Wednesday’s JCCI Annual Meeting.
So I guess we are to assume that decades of citizen participation in local growth planning is for naught.,and the oversight role of the citizen's State Department of Community Affairs simply a euphoric excercise.
Let the Professionals handle it!!!!
By the way,reference to JCCI and FTU could be cause for well deserved yawn (if not at times downright alarm or disappointment) according to outlook or assessment of effective engagement..
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 30, 2010, 12:56:12 PM
ok folks...here's what is going to happen if Amendment 4 passes....the Legislature will basically wipe out Growth Management and Comp. Planning laws and start all over.....now while that actully seems like an admirable idea (and our laws seriously need a rewrite), do you trust the Legislature to get it right?
There's an election in one month for State Legislators: vote accordingly.
"If approved, when would it actually become law?"
The homebuilders will try to litigate it to death first as they did in St. Pete's Beach, which will eventually result in the above legislature process.
Quote from: north miami on September 30, 2010, 03:56:37 PM
Quote from: riverside planner on September 30, 2010, 02:44:08 PM
Awesome quote in Abel Harding's column in the T-U today:
“Direct democracy is the crack cocaine of government. It feels really good while you’re doing it, but you’re left wondering 'What did I just do?’”
- Sean Snaith, director of the Institute for Economic Competitiveness at the University of Central Florida, in response to a question on Amendment 4 at Wednesday’s JCCI Annual Meeting.
So I guess we are to assume that decades of citizen participation in local growth planning is for naught.,and the oversight role of the citizen's State Department of Community Affairs simply a euphoric excercise.
Let the Professionals handle it!!!!
By the way,reference to JCCI and FTU could be cause for well deserved yawn (if not at times downright alarm or disappointment) according to outlook or assessment of effective engagement..
The key term here is "direct democracy". The United States is a democratic republic/representative democracy, not a true "direct democracy". Citizen involvement in planning is an important, even if admittedly sometimes frustrating, part of the growth management process. Citizens should inform the process, and in an ideal world, decisions would be based on weighing all sides and evaluating the evidence. We obviously do not live in that ideal world, but Amendment 4 would be a clear case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Oh I am sure the Single Mom working two jobs if she can get them to make ends meet has all the time in the world to address all of the details of future concurrency issues on the other side of her county.
Amendment 4 where whoever has the best TV commercials win.
+1
Quote from: trigger on September 30, 2010, 04:14:13 PM
The homebuilders will try to litigate it to death first as they did in St. Pete's Beach, which will eventually result in the above legislature process.
I think you need to do some research....most of the litigation in St. Pete Beach came from the Hometown Democracy folks when the citizens actually tried to vote FOR some development.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 30, 2010, 02:24:42 PM
The more I think about this the more I fail to see the downside in voting yes.
ok...try this...
the Springfield car wash issue generated lots of controversy and significant public input at City Council....meanwhile, land use ammendments allowing thoiusands of new homes on the sparcely populated northwest side of the County drew virtually no public input.
this is the future of Amendment 4...proposed development/redevlopments in existing urban areas will be very hard to get approved.
Also, there are those who believe infrastructure projects (like streetcar) would also have to go to referendum as these types of facilities are often shown on the future land use map
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 30, 2010, 09:57:21 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 30, 2010, 02:24:42 PM
The more I think about this the more I fail to see the downside in voting yes.
ok...try this...
the Springfield car wash issue generated lots of controversy and significant public input at City Council....meanwhile, land use ammendments allowing thoiusands of new homes on the sparcely populated northwest side of the County drew virtually no public input.
this is the future of Amendment 4...proposed development/redevlopments in existing urban areas will be very hard to get approved.
Also, there are those who believe infrastructure projects (like streetcar) would also have to go to referendum as these types of facilities are often shown on the future land use map
The carwash is a pretty excellent example of what is wrong with the current system, actually. The tail is wagging the dog. The vast majorty of the neighborhood supported it, but a handfull of bitter people from SPAR in bed with developers, together with their out-of-touch councilperson, sandbagged it anyway.
As far as rail, you have a valid point. I doubt the suburbanites in Mandarin would vote to build streetcars in Riverside. And I doubt we'd vote to do anything in Mandarin. I suspect maybe there needs to be more localization, perhaps narrow the focus into local and regional planning boards. Again amendment 4 isn't necessarily the answer, but it's no more FUBAR than what we've got now. The ultimate solution is probably some type of caucus system involving districted planning boards, so that each area has the opportunity to represent its interests. Under the current system, especially in a consolidated city/county government like Duval, the view from above is so large that the total picture gets lost in the shuffle.
Also, I don't think we need to approve every individual project with referendums, and I don't think that's the point of the amendment. I think the amendment is designed to ensure the landuse plans aren't drastically changed despite widespread community outrage. E.g., no more Nocatees getting slipped in the back door. I don't think the intent, nor the implementation, of this amendment would actually have us voting on whether Joe Schmoe can build a gas station down the street, or Sally Jane can put up a new mailbox, or whatever. This is more of a macro consideration. At least that's what I'd hope. But I guess there are no guarantees that things will turn out as intented when you're dealing with bureaucracies.
The caucus method you describe is much how the Comprehensive Plans are developed in the first place. When Amendment 4 passes you can bet that more attention will be paid to the development of the Plans.
I think they can be revised every ten years or so. One of our planners on the forum will have to confirm/correct this time frame.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 01, 2010, 11:55:31 AM
The caucus method you describe is much how the Comprehensive Plans are developed in the first place. When Amendment 4 passes you can bet that more attention will be paid to the development of the Plans.
I think they can be revised every ten years or so. One of our planners on the forum will have to confirm/correct this time frame.
Well if this just governs amending multi-year master landuse plans then it sounds like all the shrieking that everyone is doing on this forum, and everwhere else, about how Amendment 4 is going to make you have a voter referendum to put up a new mailbox is nothing more than made-up hysterics and bullcrap. Typical. I hate politics.
QuoteWell if this just governs amending multi-year master landuse plans then it sounds like all the shrieking that everyone is doing on this forum, and everwhere else, about how Amendment 4 is going to make you have a voter referendum to put up a new mailbox is nothing more than made-up hysterics and bullcrap. Typical. I hate politics.
That is exactly what it does, Chris. But the development community is used to being able to change the land use plans easier than we change our socks. They are using the typical "big lie" tactics on this.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 30, 2010, 11:50:35 PM
As far as rail, you have a valid point. I doubt the suburbanites in Mandarin would vote to build streetcars in Riverside. And I doubt we'd vote to do anything in Mandarin. I suspect maybe there needs to be more localization, perhaps narrow the focus into local and regional planning boards. Again amendment 4 isn't necessarily the answer, but it's no more FUBAR than what we've got now. The ultimate solution is probably some type of caucus system involving districted planning boards, so that each area has the opportunity to represent its interests. Under the current system, especially in a consolidated city/county government like Duval, the view from above is so large that the total picture gets lost in the shuffle.
Well according to many land planners/MPO guys/state DOT guys/and transportation planners the exact opposite is the problem. Here in Atlanta we can't get anything done precisely because there are 77 (now 79 I think) governments in a 20 county MPO region. Also, a major problem with every locality except of a couple (Portland being one) is that the state DOT and the MPO do the long range master plan and TIP whereas the local municipalities and counties do all the zoning/land planning, and there is only coordination on projects in the final stages.
People that came and lectured my Urban Transportation class yesterday have been pushing for a more streamlined board/process so stuff can actually get done.
Personally, I think the problem lays with the people (which is precisely why I don't want the people being the ultimate end all source of land/transportation decisions...a rare instance with me where I think it is government's job and not the people's). Of course I am for input in the form of public meetings and public hearings, but I think we have gotten so distracted with other issues and social issues even on the local level that city council candidates don't even mention really their positions on zoning, transportation, regulations, etc, and it has become out of site out of mind until you are the individual affected.
I think our system works fine and if people are concerned about elected officials making under the table deals or appointing crooks to other positions, they should do due diligence on the person and find out their background. We all know voter turnout is poor from national elections all the way especially to local elections where it's dismal, even though local elections usually have the greatest direct impact on people. Once again, I simply blame the people for not utilizing to the full extent a brilliant system already in place (and then blaming the system).
Plus here is what happens all the time. Dan and Sally move from Danfield, CT to some place off of Race Track road (a $350,000 5-4-door faux stucco home with half an acre and a community center). There is only one other similar development that they also looked at. Dan commutes to Southpoint or Baymeadows or Downtown and Sally takes care of the kids (they are there for the schools right?). Well fast forward 5-10 years and now there are 12 developments like their's on Race Track and traffic counts at SR-13 went from 10,000/day to 45,000/day. Now Sally and Dan are mad because they didn't think other developments would come in, at least so quickly. Now they are spewing thoughts about how sprawl has ruined the "charm" of the area and Dan's commute has doubled in time. Well, to me it sounds very hypocritical, but I bet tons of people just like this are in favor of Amendment 4 for very hypocritical and selfish reasons. So other people shouldn't be allowed to have the same 5-4-door sprawl life as Sally and Dan? Get my point?
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 01, 2010, 02:25:02 PM
That is exactly what it does, Chris. But the development community is used to being able to change the land use plans easier than we change our socks. They are using the typical "big lie" tactics on this.
Sure the developers lobby elected/appointed officials and MPO to change the land use plans. Even without developers these plans change all the time out of necessity. Land use doesn't just change in the suburbs, it changes frequently in the city, as well, to allow for higher density development or a zoning ordinance allowance to make an exception.
Quote from: simms3 on October 01, 2010, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 30, 2010, 11:50:35 PM
As far as rail, you have a valid point. I doubt the suburbanites in Mandarin would vote to build streetcars in Riverside. And I doubt we'd vote to do anything in Mandarin. I suspect maybe there needs to be more localization, perhaps narrow the focus into local and regional planning boards. Again amendment 4 isn't necessarily the answer, but it's no more FUBAR than what we've got now. The ultimate solution is probably some type of caucus system involving districted planning boards, so that each area has the opportunity to represent its interests. Under the current system, especially in a consolidated city/county government like Duval, the view from above is so large that the total picture gets lost in the shuffle.
Well according to many land planners/MPO guys/state DOT guys/and transportation planners the exact opposite is the problem. Here in Atlanta we can't get anything done precisely because there are 77 (now 79 I think) governments in a 20 county MPO region. Also, a major problem with every locality except of a couple (Portland being one) is that the state DOT and the MPO do the long range master plan and TIP whereas the local municipalities and counties do all the zoning/land planning, and there is only coordination on projects in the final stages.
People that came and lectured my Urban Transportation class yesterday have been pushing for a more streamlined board/process so stuff can actually get done.
Personally, I think the problem lays with the people (which is precisely why I don't want the people being the ultimate end all source of land/transportation decisions...a rare instance with me where I think it is government's job and not the people's). Of course I am for input in the form of public meetings and public hearings, but I think we have gotten so distracted with other issues and social issues even on the local level that city council candidates don't even mention really their positions on zoning, transportation, regulations, etc, and it has become out of site out of mind until you are the individual affected.
I think our system works fine and if people are concerned about elected officials making under the table deals or appointing crooks to other positions, they should do due diligence on the person and find out their background. We all know voter turnout is poor from national elections all the way especially to local elections where it's dismal, even though local elections usually have the greatest direct impact on people. Once again, I simply blame the people for not utilizing to the full extent a brilliant system already in place (and then blaming the system).
Plus here is what happens all the time. Dan and Sally move from Danfield, CT to some place off of Race Track road (a $350,000 5-4-door faux stucco home with half an acre and a community center). There is only one other similar development that they also looked at. Dan commutes to Southpoint or Baymeadows or Downtown and Sally takes care of the kids (they are there for the schools right?). Well fast forward 5-10 years and now there are 12 developments like their's on Race Track and traffic counts at SR-13 went from 10,000/day to 45,000/day. Now Sally and Dan are mad because they didn't think other developments would come in, at least so quickly. Now they are spewing thoughts about how sprawl has ruined the "charm" of the area and Dan's commute has doubled in time. Well, to me it sounds very hypocritical, but I bet tons of people just like this are in favor of Amendment 4 for very hypocritical and selfish reasons. So other people shouldn't be allowed to have the same 5-4-door sprawl life as Sally and Dan? Get my point?
I get your point, certainly. I just question listening to the same crew of planners and engineers who were asleep at the wheel during this last boom cycle and let things get grossly out of hand, both in Florida and in many other states. They jumped on the development bandwagon and contributed to painful sprawl problems, and to the additional costs of building and maintaining the attendant huge infrastructure requirements which were passed along to taxpayers.
Also, many planners and civil engineers make their living off of designing much of the same infrastructure attendant to new development, especially here in the sprawl-friendly south, and accordingly they have a vested interest in focusing attention away from issues that may impact their own revenue stream. I would suspect most of the ones defending sprawl-inducing policies do so because of bias / economic realities. I'm not sure there's a lot of value in letting a fox guard your henhouse.
And Dan and Sally would probably be equally happy in a reasonably-priced urban setting as in a stucco cookie-cutter, the problem is we don't really have that setting around here, and all the marketing you see is geared to suburban sprawl, because that's where profits are highest. Developers are going to chase the easiest buck, if you ever want to reverse this long slide we've been on, it would have to be done via some mechanism like this Amendment.
I could see maybe public voting on a DRI.
However, I can only imagine the kind of print, radio and tv ads that this might generate.
What ever happened to the idea of the republic? That is where we elect people to represent us in a particular matter. Especially in matters that is very complex and time consuming for the normal person to understand.
Why direct democracy? Most of us are too busy to worry about this stuff on a daily basis.
Quote from: cityimrov on October 01, 2010, 03:17:58 PM
What ever happened to the idea of the republic? That is where we elect people to represent us in a particular matter. Especially in matters that is very complex and time consuming for the normal person to understand.
Why direct democracy? Most of us are too busy to worry about this stuff on a daily basis.
The routine tasks are handled by local government planning departments,planning commissions and all centers to County Commissioners.(And also enters hired "Planners & Consultants)
And the process often comes apart,in the face of a public very willing and able to understand and in fact were directly involved-at length-,and then the process often extends to even beyond the republic's local representatives to State over sight for even more effort and understanding,often another train wreck (developer politicians would rather see State oversight/DCA go away) and that is where the citizen's checks and balances enter-via democratic vote.
Amend # 4 is really all about simple civics.It is after all,Democratic.Hometown if you wish.
A liveable,economically diverse and productive landscape is going to take effort on the part of it's citizens.Citizen involvement has been a key legacy behind many planning and growth positive initiatives and outcomes.There has been more going on than many know or would care to acknowledge.
The current arrangement has seen considerable citizen effort-now we look to a return to basics,citizen participation and design as envisioned in the earliest local government planning acts,without undue manipulation.Anything else is scary.
Quote from: north miami on October 01, 2010, 03:36:12 PM
Quote from: cityimrov on October 01, 2010, 03:17:58 PM
What ever happened to the idea of the republic? That is where we elect people to represent us in a particular matter. Especially in matters that is very complex and time consuming for the normal person to understand.
Why direct democracy? Most of us are too busy to worry about this stuff on a daily basis.
The routine tasks are handled by local government planning departments,planning commissions and all centers to County Commissioners.(And also enters hired "Planners & Consultants)
And the process often comes apart,in the face of a public very willing and able to understand and in fact were directly involved-at length-,and then the process often extends to even beyond the republic's local representatives to State over sight for even more effort and understanding,often another train wreck (developer politicians would rather see State oversight/DCA go away) and that is where the citizen's checks and balances enter-via democratic vote.
Amend # 4 is really all about simple civics.It is after all,Democratic.Hometown if you wish.
A liveable,economically diverse and productive landscape is going to take effort on the part of it's citizens.
The current arrangement has seen considerable citizen effort-now we look to a return to basics,citizen participation and design as envisioned in the earliest local government planning acts,without undue manipulation.Anything else is scary.
But as a general member of the public, I don't have time to read developer documents every week! I don't have time to spend half my week in meetings that last till 3AM to figure out if this is good or bad idea. I'm busy. I just don't have the time to micromanage land development!
What's wrong with just electing somebody to do all that work for me? The only thing I want to do is make sure my elected representative is one that would listen and make decisions similar to what I would do if I was placed in a similar situation. My main responsibility would be picking the right person for the right job. What's wrong with that?
Well, if our elected officials actually thought about the people who voted them into office, Amendment 4 might not be needed or something similar! Unbridled developement done haphazardly and willy nilly.....voters paying for infrastructure and all the amenities that goes with developing anything and here we go...........#4 is on the ballot, this time out and I guess the voters will decide, whether it is good or bad!
So, how does an average person learn about complex land laws, environmental and ecological effects, traffic patterns, and so fort for the weekly land proposals between Little Jimmy's soccer practice and Little Lily's softball game and the boss needing your help right now and first thing in the morning?
here's the deal....right now there are minor comp. plan amendments and major ones....both would be subject to referendum if Amendment 4 passes.
minor ones can be adopted at anytime...major ones are limited to 2 cycles a year per local government.
and here's the rub...any text change (even simple scrivner errors) are major text amendmnets...as are land use changes on parcels as small as 10 acres.
How many of you are likely to do reserach and vote on 25+ major amendments every year
Taking power away from (perhaps corrupt) governments=good
Giving power to the general population over issues of which they have little to no understanding=bad.
I still don't know where I stand on this issue.
It does seem suspect that the voters can only disapprove projects which have been approved while they cannot approve projects that have been disapproved. Is this the "Amendment of No"?
I'd very much prefer taking an hour once a year to go online and learn the issues to vote accordingly than continue to have unbridled and harmful sprawl inducing development roaring away for which I have to foot the bill as a taxpayer.
I have done a lot of reading on this issue since the topic first broached on the forum, and have pretty much made up my mind I will be voting yes. Enough is enough with this crap, it's quite literally ruining the state, and this will level the playing field. Developers have been able to buy off local governments over the wishes of their residents, which has led to the current problems. Buying off the entire electorate will be much harder. Good.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 01, 2010, 10:48:18 PM
here's the deal....right now there are minor comp. plan amendments and major ones....both would be subject to referendum if Amendment 4 passes.
minor ones can be adopted at anytime...major ones are limited to 2 cycles a year per local government.
and here's the rub...any text change (even simple scrivner errors) are major text amendmnets...as are land use changes on parcels as small as 10 acres.
How many of you are likely to do reserach and vote on 25+ major amendments every year
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 02, 2010, 08:29:53 AM
I'd very much prefer taking an hour once a year to go online and learn the issues to vote accordingly than continue to have unbridled and harmful sprawl inducing development roaring away for which I have to foot the bill as a taxpayer.
I have done a lot of reading on this issue since the topic first broached on the forum, and have pretty much made up my mind I will be voting yes. Enough is enough with this crap, it's quite literally ruining the state, and this will level the playing field. Developers have been able to buy off local governments over the wishes of their residents, which has led to the current problems. Buying off the entire electorate will be much harder. Good.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 01, 2010, 10:48:18 PM
here's the deal....right now there are minor comp. plan amendments and major ones....both would be subject to referendum if Amendment 4 passes.
minor ones can be adopted at anytime...major ones are limited to 2 cycles a year per local government.
and here's the rub...any text change (even simple scrivner errors) are major text amendmnets...as are land use changes on parcels as small as 10 acres.
How many of you are likely to do reserach and vote on 25+ major amendments every year
One hour a year? For 25 amendments, that's spending about 2 minutes 24 seconds per amendment. How is it possible to read hundreds of documents and listen to all the arguments in 2 minutes 24 seconds?
For the average person living in Florida, I don't think it's possible to figure out the ramifications in 2 minutes and 24 seconds.
What is so wrong with representative government? If this was another layer of elected officials on top of the current system, it might work, but this is asking for direct democracy on a complicated issue.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 02, 2010, 08:29:53 AM
I'd very much prefer taking an hour once a year to go online and learn the issues to vote accordingly than continue to have unbridled and harmful sprawl inducing development roaring away for which I have to foot the bill as a taxpayer.
I have done a lot of reading on this issue since the topic first broached on the forum, and have pretty much made up my mind I will be voting yes. Enough is enough with this crap, it's quite literally ruining the state, and this will level the playing field. Developers have been able to buy off local governments over the wishes of their residents, which has led to the current problems. Buying off the entire electorate will be much harder. Good.
maybe you've done a lot of reading on the issue, but clearly haven't done much research into comp. plan amendments....while most text and map amendments themselves are fairly simple, they are supported by lots of data and analysis...somtimes hundreds of pages.
Good luck getting up to speed on even one amendment in 1 hour!
While I am unsureof how perfect Amendment 4 is, like the Class Size Amendment, it seems born out of great citizen frustration with our politicians and paid public officials doing the right thing regarding growth management.
If Amendment 4 passes, no matter its flaws, it won't be the end of the world. Why? It will serve its purpose to finally get the attention of the do-nothing politicos, and they will come back with a modifying amendment that better gets the job done while improving the current process. This is what has happened with the Class Size Amendment. The legislature has a modification amendment on this November's ballet that will leave much of the original Class Size intact but make it more practical to implement. Without the original Class Size amendment, the legislature would have just continued to ignore funding education at even the paltry level it's at now with the Amendment.
The legislature is so do-nothing that it forces citizen amendments like this to get them to get off their butts and do their jobs. On this basis, I think Amendment 4 may be worthy despite one's concerns about how practical its implementation is. We can always tweak it later and probably will. The current process isn't working in the eyes of most citizens.
Quote from: stjr on October 03, 2010, 02:53:19 AM
While I am unsureof how perfect Amendment 4 is, like the Class Size Amendment, it seems born out of great citizen frustration with our politicians and paid public officials doing the right thing regarding growth management.
If Amendment 4 passes, no matter its flaws, it won't be the end of the world. Why? It will serve its purpose to finally get the attention of the do-nothing politicos, and they will come back with a modifying amendment that better gets the job done while improving the current process. This is what has happened with the Class Size Amendment. The legislature has a modification amendment on this November's ballet that will leave much of the original Class Size intact but make it more practical to implement. Without the original Class Size amendment, the legislature would have just continued to ignore funding education at even the paltry level it's at now with the Amendment.
The legislature is so do-nothing that it forces citizen amendments like this to get them to get off their butts and do their jobs. On this basis, I think Amendment 4 may be worthy despite one's concerns about how practical its implementation is. We can always tweak it later and probably will. The current process isn't working in the eyes of most citizens.
Good point. Not only does it ignore the fact that it will likely reduce the number of jobs in the construction and land development sectors, it also ignores property rights.
There won't likely be a true sampling of an informed populace making the actual votes, but a few with vested interests as well as others with time on their hands.
Not to mention the lunatic fringe. (not a reference to that horrible song from the eighties... Here's a better one) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1oyfG6t2ew
buckethead............no worse than the total of voter turnout! How many actually vote on any one matter of importance? Last Primary just past, total turnout was something like 20%, according to Jerry Hollands bunch plus or minus 2% ..........what happened to the other 80%? Too busy, out of town or what? Tis a said state of affairs when people will bitch but don't do something as civic as vote! Right or wrong.....I am voting on 4! A prudent person should do something..............right or wrong, but do something!
Quote from: buckethead on October 03, 2010, 06:29:02 AM
Quote from: stjr on October 03, 2010, 02:53:19 AM
While I am unsureof how perfect Amendment 4 is, like the Class Size Amendment, it seems born out of great citizen frustration with our politicians and paid public officials doing the right thing regarding growth management.
If Amendment 4 passes, no matter its flaws, it won't be the end of the world. Why? It will serve its purpose to finally get the attention of the do-nothing politicos, and they will come back with a modifying amendment that better gets the job done while improving the current process. This is what has happened with the Class Size Amendment. The legislature has a modification amendment on this November's ballet that will leave much of the original Class Size intact but make it more practical to implement. Without the original Class Size amendment, the legislature would have just continued to ignore funding education at even the paltry level it's at now with the Amendment.
The legislature is so do-nothing that it forces citizen amendments like this to get them to get off their butts and do their jobs. On this basis, I think Amendment 4 may be worthy despite one's concerns about how practical its implementation is. We can always tweak it later and probably will. The current process isn't working in the eyes of most citizens.
Good point. Not only does it ignore the fact that it will likely reduce the number of jobs in the construction and land development sectors, it also ignores property rights.
There won't likely be a true sampling of an informed populace making the actual votes, but a few with vested interests as well as others with time on their hands.
Not to mention the lunatic fringe. (not a reference to that horrible song from the eighties... Here's a better one) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1oyfG6t2ew
Did you even read what you quoted? That's not what stjr said...
And I don't care about construction jobs. People are sick of unbridled sprawl-producing development.
Our existing comp plans are sprawl producers. I have a sick feeling that urban infill and density (see Chew's Five Points project or the Springfield car wash threads for examples) will suffer more if Amendment 4 passes.
correct you are Lake...as I noted in an earlier post, new development in the hinterlands will have an easier time getting passed than redevelopment....I cited the Springfield car wash, but let's use a moire recent example...the proposed Oak Street building in 5 Points.
Agree with Lakelander, Buckethead, and CS. Jobs will be lost, feuds will ensue, "special interests" will still prevail, nobody will vote anyway and those that do will either have incentive (protect their loan sprawl development from having neighborhing developments or protect "integrity" of Riverside from such modernity has the Oak St development), and most who vote will not be highly informed (and will vote emotionally). Why would any move to FL with jobs, needing to relocate 50+ people, when it will now be next to impossible. Sure we currently have an oversupply, but what about infill and when our supply runs out? How are things going to get done around here? There's enough squabbling as it is with politicians, just look at the productive squabbling we have here on our citizenry boards over often minute issues, people can go for days, weeks, months, and years arguing why something should or should not happen, and in the process nothing happens. Welcome to Amendment 4. And construction jobs lost is not a good thing ChriswUFGator. It means other jobs are lost, too.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2010, 09:34:26 AM
Our existing comp plans are sprawl producers. I have a sick feeling that urban infill and density (see Chew's Five Points project or the Springfield car wash threads for examples) will suffer more if Amendment 4 passes.
Chew's project would be swimming along already if they'd just make one or two design concessions, which amount to a few more windows, a parking arrangement, and 400sq feet worth of space lost to required setbacks, which is totally negligible on a 20k+ sq feet project. The owner's refusal to make these extremely minor design changes has led to the opposition that the project now faces. Amendment 4 wouldn't change that in the slightest.
Look folks, quit confusing land use plans with zoning!
Amendment 4 would have nothing, nothing, nothing to do with a car wash in Springfield or the Oak Street project in Riverside. Do I need to say NOTHING again?
Nocatee WOULD have had to go to a public vote.
Big landowners hold land under "agricultural" use for decades paying little or no taxes on it (run a few cows!) then, presto-chango, get Paul Hardin to get our county commissioners to change the land use of your land to "residential PUD" and immediately gain millions of dollars. Do the names of Hodges, Skinner, Davis ring a bell? There's lots of smaller ones out there too.
Quote from: simms3 on October 03, 2010, 09:55:27 AM
Agree with Lakelander, Buckethead, and CS. Jobs will be lost, feuds will ensue, "special interests" will still prevail, nobody will vote anyway and those that do will either have incentive (protect their loan sprawl development from having neighborhing developments or protect "integrity" of Riverside from such modernity has the Oak St development), and most who vote will not be highly informed (and will vote emotionally). Why would any move to FL with jobs, needing to relocate 50+ people, when it will now be next to impossible. Sure we currently have an oversupply, but what about infill and when our supply runs out? How are things going to get done around here? There's enough squabbling as it is with politicians, just look at the productive squabbling we have here on our citizenry boards over often minute issues, people can go for days, weeks, months, and years arguing why something should or should not happen, and in the process nothing happens. Welcome to Amendment 4. And construction jobs lost is not a good thing ChriswUFGator. It means other jobs are lost, too.
So what.
Better than cramming another sprawl-inducing development down a the throats communities that don't want it so that a developer can make a quick buck. The current system is broken. If a project is great and people actually want it, then it shouldn't have any problem getting approval for a zoning change. It sounds like what you don't like is the fact that a developer may no longer be able to build whatever they want wherever they want, over the wishes of the voters.
QuoteSo what. Better than cramming another sprawl-inducing development down a the throats communities that don't want it so that a developer can make a buck. The current system is broken. If a project is great and people actually want it, then it shouldn't have any problem getting approval.
Also don't forget why the Legislature put the whole Comprehensive Land Use Plan process in place in the first place.
The development/construction moguls have pushed so much through the local amendment loophole as to make the entire thing null and void. Amendment 4 is just trying to close the loophole and stop the abuse; to restore what Comprehensive Land Use planning was trying to do in the first place.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 03, 2010, 12:40:39 PM
QuoteSo what. Better than cramming another sprawl-inducing development down a the throats communities that don't want it so that a developer can make a buck. The current system is broken. If a project is great and people actually want it, then it shouldn't have any problem getting approval.
Also don't forget why the Legislature put the whole Comprehensive Land Use Plan process in place in the first place.
The development/construction moguls have pushed so much through the local amendment loophole as to make the entire thing null and void. Amendment 4 is just trying to close the loophole and stop the abuse; to restore what Comprehensive Land Use planning was trying to do in the first place.
+1,000,000
The flip end of Nocatee would be something like Orlando's Baldwin Park or Atlanta's Atlantic Station. Our system definitely has it's problems, however I'm not sure that Amendment 4 won't make them worse.
As for Jax, going either way may have little to no impact at all. Revised comp plan changes have already been submitted and approved by the state.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 03, 2010, 12:34:49 PM
Big landowners hold land under "agricultural" use for decades paying little or no taxes on it (run a few cows!) then, presto-chango, get Paul Hardin to get our county commissioners to change the land use of your land to "residential PUD" and immediately gain millions of dollars. Do the names of Hodges, Skinner, Davis ring a bell? There's lots of smaller ones out there too.
First of all land use and zoning are directly tied together. Zoning regulations include area, height, and placement regulations as well as specification of permitted uses (minimum lot sizes, minimum usable floor area, minimum usable open space, minimum parking, maximum height, and required setbacks). Land planning uses zoning regulations (often requiring changes to current zoning regulations) to plan. Local governments are in charge of zoning. The MPO works with FDOT to create a transportation improvement program for the short term and the comprehensive master plan. The best way to solve the "Nocatee" problem is to elect better leaders and to set up a system where the MPO/FDOT works more closely with local governments rather than rarely collaborating and only when there is currently overlap midway through projects.
Nocatee is certainly a major change to the comprehensive land use plan (which is subject to zoning regulation changes). The Oak Street project is a minor change to the comprehensive land use plan (which is subject to zoning regulation changes). Both sound like they would be up for public vote under Amendment 4. One may be more drastic than the other, sure, but residents of Riverside could care less about Nocatee and for them the Oak St project is their own version of "Nocatee".
Also, the Skinners have a right to try to gain as much of a capital gain on their land as possible. Their land is some of the only undeveloped land on the Southside of Duval County. If they were never allowed to apply for zoning changes and sell to developers, then someone else in another county would undoubtedly do so. If we don't build another development on undeveloped land like the Skinner's, then the only two remaining options are to not grow (and is that really an option we want?) or to build up, which would require equally major zoning regulation changes (which greatly affects comprehensive land use plans).
Perhaps the balance is to encourage developers to redevelop the urban areas and make them denser (which is often a more expensive process and if you want to live in a highrise condo or mixed use development you will often pay more per square foot than a comparative suburban development, not to mention COA fees). We also still need to allow developers to build in undeveloped land areas, but we can do it better. We can levy higher impact fees and we can limit dendritic road patterns and pack people in more rather than leaving acres of woods and swamp between streets. The wetland mitigation can be better handled and instead of the space between roads in the same development (not even to be filled with a golf course, who is building those nowadays anyway?), the space can be a contiguous block or a park, etc between entire developments.
Bottom line, we can do better than Amendment 4. Also, if you owned land like the Skinners you would want to be able to sell it for a great profit, too. That can't happen if you can only sell it as farm land (which is not valuable land in the middle of a city). Perhaps one of the best investments someone can make is to buy up land outside of a city and wait for accretion to kick in, then sell that land when the picking is ripe. The Skinners waited so long for such a great profit that development has nearly sourrounded their land if you count Nocatee/210 as forming the southern border. Also, there are so many Skinners they need the land to sell so high just so each member of the Trust can get anything at all.
Quote from: stephendare on October 03, 2010, 01:18:17 PM
Everyone has a right to try and make profit.
But no one has the right to use hundreds of millions of free tax dollars to do it. The land wouldnt have its present value if not for the tax payer financed roads, highways, public safety and infrastructure investment.
They had great farmland, and that farmland, given responsible husbandry increases in value.
As farmland.
+1,000,001
How is Amendment 4 is going to stop highway construction?
Quote from: stephendare on October 03, 2010, 01:18:17 PM
Everyone has a right to try and make profit.
But no one has the right to use hundreds of millions of free tax dollars to do it. The land wouldnt have its present value if not for the tax payer financed roads, highways, public safety and infrastructure investment.
They had great farmland, and that farmland, given responsible husbandry increases in value.
As farmland.
Are you referring to JTB? The Skinners own land south of JTB, some of which is now developed, most of which is still nursery/forestry/swampland. I thought JTB was to provide another route for beach residents to the city as well as relieve traffic on congested Beach and Atlantic. JTB wasn't built "for" the Skinners so they could eventually sell the land for more. I'm not buying your argument. If you can prove landowners are bribing officials to get certain projects done, then by all means, I want that to end, too! If you can provide proof landowners are arranging under the table deals, by all means. Also, the Skinners who have sold some of their land around 9A and Baymeadows did not benefit from taxpayer funded roadways. The developers did, and it was the planners, FDOT, SAFETEA-LU funding, our MPO, and other officials who signed off on these roadway facilities, and many developers have actually paid substantial impact fees and mitigation costs in recent years (with a few notable developments being blocked), though I'm sure we can all agree that more should be done.
The Davis land is south of the Skinner land, but I don't know all the specifics of either's, I just know many of the Skinners and have been out to their nursery numerous times. They are good people, not being "greedy" in any bit. Paul Harden is simply doing his job and has earned a stellar reputation in this town. If I needed something done or legal work and had the money, I would hire a partner from his firm, too.
I'm not trying to side with anyone, but I am siding against Amendment 4. It's all fluff. It sounds good, but will do more harm than help.
The building of JTB was actually to help Hodges, mostly, along with the well known folk who wanted to develop Ponte Vedre (In St. John's County!) It wasn't built to meet demand or relieve congestion and was widely derided as "road to nowhere" when it was first built. If you build them, they will fill them!
Amendment 4 is going to cause real uproar and difficult changes. It will create inequities and have consequences we cannot predict now. But it will restore some consistency and sanity to our land use planning as was intended in the first place.
Nothing can be as bad as what we have now; corrupt, short-sighted, unpredictable, invisible to citizens.
-30-
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 03, 2010, 08:57:48 AM
Quote from: buckethead on October 03, 2010, 06:29:02 AM
Quote from: stjr on October 03, 2010, 02:53:19 AM
ignore
citizen
jobs.
Good point. Not only does it ignore the fact that it will likely reduce the number of jobs in the construction and land development sectors, it also ignores property rights.
There won't likely be a true sampling of an informed populace making the actual votes, but a few with vested interests as well as others with time on their hands.
Not to mention the lunatic fringe. (not a reference to that horrible song from the eighties... Here's a better one) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1oyfG6t2ew
Did you even read what you quoted? That's not what stjr said... Now it is.
And I don't care about construction jobs. People are sick of unbridled sprawl-producing development.
Clearly you don't feed, clothe and house your family with money earned from a construction job.
Nice concern for your fellow citizen.
nimby
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 03, 2010, 12:38:56 PM
So what.
Better than cramming another sprawl-inducing development down a the throats communities that don't want it
I would suggest people do want the new developments, as evidenced by the fact that they sell.
Quote from: buckethead on October 03, 2010, 05:43:20 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 03, 2010, 12:38:56 PM
So what.
Better than cramming another sprawl-inducing development down a the throats communities that don't want it
I would suggest people do want the new developments, as evidenced by the fact that they sell.
They sell because they are cheaply priced, owing to the developers shifting much of their infrastructure burden to the taxpayers. If these developments weren't built people would just buy houses elsewhere, which would actually be healthier for the economy. Not sure what your point is.
Actually the developers pay pretty hefty impact fees, though I think they can be increased. I hate hate hate sprawl at least as much as anyone here, but trying to forgo emotional arguments here I think Amendment 4 will not solve the problems it is claiming it will, but WILL kill jobs, and WILL hinder population growth (which ends up being a good thing for the tax base at the very least). How do you know people will just buy houses elsewhere? Lots of those suburban home dwellers come from densely packed northern cities and are actually looking for a suburban tract home near a playground with a yard. They aren't looking to move from a northern urban environment to a southern urban environment, unfortunately, and if Amendment 4 passes they'll just choose to move to another sunbelt state.
If Amendment 4 passes, sure we might not see any or much more sprawl around 210, etc, but we also might not see any or much more urban infill development if densities, setbacks, parking requirements, or any other aspect of the development are different from what is currently zoned (which is always the case). Both types of development will hit a roadblock with this type of development. I would rather see sprawl AND urban infill happening than none of it at all. I don't think you can have much of one without some of the other. Part of the appeal, ironically, of Jax and FL is the sprawl. Maybe we can curb that, but if we eliminate it completely, we'll be cutting off a huge portion of our immigration from other cities. My generation, the 20-35 year olds, want urban. The baby boomers are fairly split, with many who move to Jax being of the sprawl variety (actually preferring that, and companies know that). At this point, we just need to curb sprawl and regulate how a PUD is built (prevent dendritic streets, levy larger impact fees, regulate what and where "open land" constitutes, etc).
Most citizens have no background in planning, transportation, or anything of the sort. Engineers already have a hard time explaining impacts of various new road facilities or PUDs (which most people outside of this board don't even know what a PUD stands for or any legal regulations of PUDs). This isn't necessarily ignorance, but do we want to place decisions in the hands of people who have no idea about land planning, zoning, transportation planning, how our MPO and our local governments work, anything about the developers, or any side of the matter? I sure don't.
Amendment 4 isn't going to stop sprawl. Most of this state's comp plans encourage it and the majority of the land people think is zoned for agricultural uses has already been approved for development (especially local areas like the Westside and Northern St. Johns County). Those large land use changes are the ones tufsu1 mentioned where no one even shows up at the meetings (for or against). However, we'll pack city hall to protest a car wash, Walmart or infill apartment complex. If anything, Amendment 4 will enable future sprawl (because comp plans already allow for it while discouraging infill and density) and limit the potential of modifying sprawl encouraging comp plans in a manner where more sustainable and pedestrian friendly development is allowed.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2010, 02:35:29 PM
How is Amendment 4 is going to stop highway construction?
It won't....although, sadly, it may make it harder to get rail...while Duval has now put it in the comp. plan, I do not think the folks in Clay, Nassau, amd St. Johns have....without the outlying counties, commuter rail doesn't happen
True. Commuter rail would have to happen within Duval County's borders, since we would be responsible for footing the bill.
Florida Tax Watch has looked at the financial impact to taxpayers for Amendment 4
http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/10052010FiscalImpactAmendment4.pdf
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 06, 2010, 02:06:59 PM
Florida Tax Watch has looked at the financial impact to taxpayers for Amendment 4
http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/10052010FiscalImpactAmendment4.pdf
Good link I read through most of it but then decided the flaws they point out should be obvious to anyone who thinks about the amendment for thirty seconds.
And what's the cost of unbridled sprawl to the taxpayers?
Amendment 4 won't stop sprawl for sure. No one knows what Amendment 4 will do or cost. I don't see how people can vote for it with such confidence.
Amendment 4 could actually help preserve sprawl.
Amendment 4 looks to be a tool to get the legislature to finally act on urban sprawl. If it passes, it likely won't stay in its current form for long without modification (if the consequences are a fraction of what detractors claim), but upon such modification, we should end up with something both workable and better than what we have now - which is nothing.
If Amendment 4 fails, what's to keep the status quo of unbridled growth from continuing? The legislature will not address urban sprawl unless given a mandate to do so. Amendment 4 could serve that purpose. I actually think politicos secretly like these amendments because it can empower them to do things they otherwise would avoid like the plague.
It's unfortunate that citizen initiatives are required to make the legislature do its job. I again cite the class size amendment used to get funding for education as an example. It will now be tweaked but we will be better off with it than without. Seems to me, as imperfect as Amendment 4 could be, it would serve the same purpose.
Quote from: stjr on October 07, 2010, 08:04:59 PM
Amendment 4 looks to be a tool to get the legislature to finally act on urban sprawl.
correct...which is the one reason that I would consier supporting it...
but...do you trust the Legislature (the same ones who want to abolish DRIs and CA) to get it right?
Is there anyone AGAINST Amendment 4? We would like to run a for and against guest editorial on the topic, later this month. Let me, one of the site administrators or moderators know if you would be interesting in sharing your thoughts on the issue on the front page of MJ.
Can not help you there lake! I believe that I will be voting "YES" on 4.....time to head the developers off at the pass! If they can convince me otherwise.......they can try!
Im voting against 4. I would be interested.
Quote from: stjr on October 07, 2010, 08:04:59 PM
Amendment 4 looks to be a tool to get the legislature to finally act on urban sprawl. If it passes, it likely won't stay in its current form for long without modification (if the consequences are a fraction of what detractors claim), but upon such modification, we should end up with something both workable and better than what we have now - which is nothing.
If Amendment 4 fails, what's to keep the status quo of unbridled growth from continuing? The legislature will not address urban sprawl unless given a mandate to do so. Amendment 4 could serve that purpose. I actually think politicos secretly like these amendments because it can empower them to do things they otherwise would avoid like the plague.
It's unfortunate that citizen initiatives are required to make the legislature do its job. I again cite the class size amendment used to get funding for education as an example. It will now be tweaked but we will be better off with it than without. Seems to me, as imperfect as Amendment 4 could be, it would serve the same purpose.
If that is really what Amendment 4 is about, that's playing with fire at the gas station. It's a highly risky maneuver. At least with the class size amendment, they have time to figure out something that will work due to the gradual class scaling. With Amendment 4, there is no time - its implemented as soon as it get's voted on! Every second a new counter-amendment isn't created is everyday an uncertainty is created - either no development, mass development to a scale we haven't seen before, or random development where we have no clue what will happen (we might as well turn development to the lotto!)
Next is the voters. The new class size amendment has no guarantee it will pass. We could be stuck with the old amendment no matter what the cost. The same could be true if Amendment 4 passes. In addition to that, there has been a history of voters not wanting to give up power once they have it. Especially to an elected representative. It's going to be much tougher to turnover Amendment 4 once it passes and replace it with something better then it would be without it and vote on the better plan in the first place.
I see your point but this is a very risky a maneuver to get what you want.
If we let a desire for the perfect stop us trying for the good and better, then we will get nowhere. What we have now is not working. Let's try something else even if it isn't perfect.
Urban sprawl isn't the problem... its SUBurban sprawl that we need to stop.
Dog Walker...........I tend to agree with you! Obvious what we have now is not doing the job, concurrency is not evenly applied and more often or not, not in the effected area so I am thinking time for something to take place! Let the voters have their say and lets move on! Developers will just love it right?
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 08, 2010, 03:52:20 PM
Dog Walker...........I tend to agree with you! Obvious what we have now is not doing the job, concurrency is not evenly applied and more often or not, not in the effected area so I am thinking time for something to take place! Let the voters have their say and lets move on! Developers will just love it right?
Actually, for rural developers, they might just love it - especially if cool commercials showing the neat amenities there are shown. If Nocatee was put to the vote, it would be approved by a huge margin. The houses in Nocatee aren't being bought up by magical beings, they are being bought by the "Average American Family" with 2.5 kids who want their kids to go to a brand new school near their house with new teachers and who also represents a gigantic voting block.
It's also important to look at the effect of Amendment 4 on the actual planning process. By voting yes, you are effectively turning the urban planner from a civil servant into a politician. The successful comprehensive plan won't be the one that best solves issues of housing/economic development/transportation, but the one that is most likely to be voted for by the public. What's to stop developers from influencing these plans? If our local government really is corrupt, Amendment 4 won't do anything to change that.
Also, do we really want to allocate taxpayer's money to funding 25+ referenda a year, not to mention the costs of trying to educate the public about each and every land-use amendment?
This website is full of relatively like-minded individuals with a healthy interest in the community, but we are a small minority in the community. When faced with the choice of converting designated farmland into potential suburban development, the average citizen is much more likely to think about the that jobs will be created by the project than the environmental/sociological impact of sprawl, especially in the wake of the current unemployment rate.
QuoteThe successful comprehensive plan won't be the one that best solves issues of housing/economic development/transportation, but the one that is most likely to be voted for by the public. What's to stop developers from influencing these plans?
Problem is the current "successful comprehensive plans" already don't solve the issues of "housing/economic development/transportation".... and, they are already influenced by developers. That's why Amendment 4 is on the ballot.
The best way to respond to Amendment 4 is to come up with a another viable and effective alternative to the status quo. Simply telling people that Amendment 4 is imperfect isn't all that persuasive given the many imperfections of the current system. It currently comes down to do you want to err on the side of over-development or underdevelopment. Since the over-development is irreversible, it would seem many will want to err on the always reversible underdevelopment that may result from Amendment 4 passing.
While I have every confidence that the majority of voters who placed the pregnant pig amendment into the Constitution of the State of Florida would be able to excercise a similar level of good judgement in the examination of hundreds of pages of documentation of a land use change, such effort might not be necessary after all. (don't know where the number 25 came from.. more than 150 last year and it was a slow year)
Comprehensive planning process was an imperfectly crafted compromise between the development community and environmentalist and community interests. If Amendment 4 passes, look for legislation to be re-introduced (there was already a bill last year) that would terminate comprehensive planning in Florida entirely and dissolve the Department of Community Affairs.
Problem solved.
Quote from: stjr on October 08, 2010, 11:56:18 PM
Problem is the current "successful comprehensive plans" already don't solve the issues of "housing/economic development/transportation".... and, they are already influenced by developers. That's why Amendment 4 is on the ballot.
The best way to respond to Amendment 4 is to come up with a another viable and effective alternative to the status quo. Simply telling people that Amendment 4 is imperfect isn't all that persuasive given the many imperfections of the current system. It currently comes down to do you want to err on the side of over-development or underdevelopment. Since the over-development is irreversible, it would seem many will want to err on the always reversible underdevelopment that may result from Amendment 4 passing.
I agree, but there isn't exactly time to put a better alternative on the ballot. I don't understand the argument that Amendment 4 should be passed simply to force us to come up with a better alternative later. If this radical of an amendment could make it onto the ballot, isn't it even more likely that a more practical solution will be able to? It's not like after this year suddenly we will forget that the current system is imperfect. I think more people would risk over-development in favor of lower government costs and unemployment. The taxpayers money should be going to schools, not useless elections meant to frustrate the government and slow the economy.
Perhaps the real solution is to fight the corruption itself? Think about how many people have been exposed to aspects of planning and urban development from this website that never had been before. Imagine if there existed a way to see what decisions are being made, why, and by whom in our local government. This kind of transparency would force politicians to express their positions on issues that actually matter and remove all the fluff. Citizens could see how the government acted on issues of smart growth, and could more effectively root out corruption. Certainly this would take less time, money, and effort than putting every decision to a vote.
Quote from: cityimrov on October 08, 2010, 08:38:51 PM
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 08, 2010, 03:52:20 PM
Dog Walker...........I tend to agree with you! Obvious what we have now is not doing the job, concurrency is not evenly applied and more often or not, not in the effected area so I am thinking time for something to take place! Let the voters have their say and lets move on! Developers will just love it right?
Actually, for rural developers, they might just love it - especially if cool commercials showing the neat amenities there are shown. If Nocatee was put to the vote, it would be approved by a huge margin. The houses in Nocatee aren't being bought up by magical beings, they are being bought by the "Average American Family" with 2.5 kids who want their kids to go to a brand new school near their house with new teachers and who also represents a gigantic voting block.
Are you saying these people aren't clamoring to move into Springfield?
We need to limit their alternatives and force them to live where we se fit. ;)
Money wasted from both sides of this issue. The only winners are the Advertising Firms, and Sign Makers.
Most voters does not understand the issue, which is sad.
Quote from: British Shoe Company on October 09, 2010, 07:09:04 PM
Money wasted from both sides of this issue. The only winners are the Advertising Firms, and Sign Makers.
Most voters does not understand the issue, which is sad.
But what about the ones who do? With voter turnout being as little as it is, last primary is a good example.............about 21% of all registered voters on both sides of the aisle, whatever takes place will be based on those that vote! I am voting and allways do, plus I am informed. Might be the exception to the rule, but everyone needs to do their part adn this is how I do mine. I am voting for Amendment 4 since I think it is past time to reign in developers and bought politicians.........it is not perfect but I see what has taken place so far and want some change now!
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 09, 2010, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: British Shoe Company on October 09, 2010, 07:09:04 PM
Money wasted from both sides of this issue. The only winners are the Advertising Firms, and Sign Makers.
Most voters does not understand the issue, which is sad.
But what about the ones who do? With voter turnout being as little as it is, last primary is a good example.............about 21% of all registered voters on both sides of the aisle, whatever takes place will be based on those that vote! I am voting and allways do, plus I am informed. Might be the exception to the rule, but everyone needs to do their part adn this is how I do mine. I am voting for Amendment 4 since I think it is past time to reign in developers and bought politicians.........it is not perfect but I see what has taken place so far and want some change now!
You sound informed, and it's good that you vote.
If it does pass, how much would you estimate the costs to have a referendum for each FLUM change request?
Is the Government ready to take on that price?
I know the Advertising, and Sign Makers are voting YES!
Quote from: buckethead on October 09, 2010, 05:14:25 AM
Quote from: cityimrov on October 08, 2010, 08:38:51 PM
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 08, 2010, 03:52:20 PM
Dog Walker...........I tend to agree with you! Obvious what we have now is not doing the job, concurrency is not evenly applied and more often or not, not in the effected area so I am thinking time for something to take place! Let the voters have their say and lets move on! Developers will just love it right?
Actually, for rural developers, they might just love it - especially if cool commercials showing the neat amenities there are shown. If Nocatee was put to the vote, it would be approved by a huge margin. The houses in Nocatee aren't being bought up by magical beings, they are being bought by the "Average American Family" with 2.5 kids who want their kids to go to a brand new school near their house with new teachers and who also represents a gigantic voting block.
Are you saying these people aren't clamoring to move into Springfield?
We need to limit their alternatives and force them to live where we se fit. ;)
Actually, most average people I find tend to think of Springfield as a drug infested rundown old neighborhood away from amenities commonly found in places like Eagle Harbor.
I remember taking a tour of some type and something caused us to stop in the middle of Springfield on our way to another destination. These were mostly average people and pretty much everyone huddled close together with a fear of getting shot, robbed, or mugged.
John Wayne would vote "NO".
See the movie "Big Jake"!!!!!
I am voting with the Duke!
The Duke would say "Dog" if you think having an election for every NOPC to the FLUM is smart.
Elections cost money, and we pay the Board of Commissioners.
Do we need both??????
Vote "NO" to #4!
"Mr. Clark" (BSC), We have elections a couple of times a year already and there is no reason that the referendums for land use changes could not be concurrent with those elections.
The cost of holding those elections in any case would be much lower than the cost to provide roads and utilities to the sprawl developments that Amendment 4 is trying to control.
Quote from: cityimrov on October 07, 2010, 10:41:13 PM
Quote from: stjr on October 07, 2010, 08:04:59 PM
Amendment 4 looks to be a tool to get the legislature to finally act on urban sprawl. If it passes, it likely won't stay in its current form for long without modification (if the consequences are a fraction of what detractors claim), but upon such modification, we should end up with something both workable and better than what we have now - which is nothing.
If Amendment 4 fails, what's to keep the status quo of unbridled growth from continuing? The legislature will not address urban sprawl unless given a mandate to do so. Amendment 4 could serve that purpose. I actually think politicos secretly like these amendments because it can empower them to do things they otherwise would avoid like the plague.
It's unfortunate that citizen initiatives are required to make the legislature do its job. I again cite the class size amendment used to get funding for education as an example. It will now be tweaked but we will be better off with it than without. Seems to me, as imperfect as Amendment 4 could be, it would serve the same purpose.
If that is really what Amendment 4 is about, that's playing with fire at the gas station. It's a highly risky maneuver. At least with the class size amendment, they have time to figure out something that will work due to the gradual class scaling. With Amendment 4, there is no time - its implemented as soon as it get's voted on! Every second a new counter-amendment isn't created is everyday an uncertainty is created - either no development, mass development to a scale we haven't seen before, or random development where we have no clue what will happen (we might as well turn development to the lotto!)
Next is the voters. The new class size amendment has no guarantee it will pass. We could be stuck with the old amendment no matter what the cost. The same could be true if Amendment 4 passes. In addition to that, there has been a history of voters not wanting to give up power once they have it. Especially to an elected representative. It's going to be much tougher to turnover Amendment 4 once it passes and replace it with something better then it would be without it and vote on the better plan in the first place.
I see your point but this is a very risky a maneuver to get what you want.
What's risky is the pattern of development that has been undertaken in this state over the past 30 years. It's downright foolish, and costs the taxpayers far more (probably for a single road or "bridge to nowhere") than any of the alleged costs being associated with this amendment. Developers will adjust. The prime quality in any successful business is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Those who don't, fail.
If you expect me, or any other voter, to apologize to the developers simply because they may have to work a little harder for their copious financial rewards, then you're somewhat misguided. If the voters have their say, that's all there is to it. People who don't like it can move to another state. People are sick of sprawl.
Many assume that the carefully crafted,and routinely updated county FLUM (Future Land Use Map) is there to be substantially revised at whim.After all,that has been the case.
Nocatee carefully stuck it's toe in the FLUM waters and found conditions very comfortable-ushering in a tidal wave by others.As one brief example.
FLUM can be pesky in part because it is in part a product of the citizens,no matter how manipulated towards general predetermined boundary and "consensus".
Amendment 4 discussions reveal most citizens are not aware public participation in FLUM is a matter of Florida Growth Management rule.
It took almost 5 years for Nocatee to get through the local approval, state oversight, and challenge process.....hardly what I would call calm waters
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 14, 2010, 01:14:35 PM
It took almost 5 years for Nocatee to get through the local approval, state oversight, and challenge process.....hardly what I would call calm waters
And after all that time and effort, they STILL couldn't get it right.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 14, 2010, 12:42:46 PM
Quote from: cityimrov on October 07, 2010, 10:41:13 PM
Quote from: stjr on October 07, 2010, 08:04:59 PM
Amendment 4 looks to be a tool to get the legislature to finally act on urban sprawl. If it passes, it likely won't stay in its current form for long without modification (if the consequences are a fraction of what detractors claim), but upon such modification, we should end up with something both workable and better than what we have now - which is nothing.
If Amendment 4 fails, what's to keep the status quo of unbridled growth from continuing? The legislature will not address urban sprawl unless given a mandate to do so. Amendment 4 could serve that purpose. I actually think politicos secretly like these amendments because it can empower them to do things they otherwise would avoid like the plague.
It's unfortunate that citizen initiatives are required to make the legislature do its job. I again cite the class size amendment used to get funding for education as an example. It will now be tweaked but we will be better off with it than without. Seems to me, as imperfect as Amendment 4 could be, it would serve the same purpose.
If that is really what Amendment 4 is about, that's playing with fire at the gas station. It's a highly risky maneuver. At least with the class size amendment, they have time to figure out something that will work due to the gradual class scaling. With Amendment 4, there is no time - its implemented as soon as it get's voted on! Every second a new counter-amendment isn't created is everyday an uncertainty is created - either no development, mass development to a scale we haven't seen before, or random development where we have no clue what will happen (we might as well turn development to the lotto!)
Next is the voters. The new class size amendment has no guarantee it will pass. We could be stuck with the old amendment no matter what the cost. The same could be true if Amendment 4 passes. In addition to that, there has been a history of voters not wanting to give up power once they have it. Especially to an elected representative. It's going to be much tougher to turnover Amendment 4 once it passes and replace it with something better then it would be without it and vote on the better plan in the first place.
I see your point but this is a very risky a maneuver to get what you want.
What's risky is the pattern of development that has been undertaken in this state over the past 30 years. It's downright foolish, and costs the taxpayers far more (probably for a single road or "bridge to nowhere") than any of the alleged costs being associated with this amendment. Developers will adjust. The prime quality in any successful business is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Those who don't, fail.
If you expect me, or any other voter, to apologize to the developers simply because they may have to work a little harder for their copious financial rewards, then you're somewhat misguided. If the voters have their say, that's all there is to it. People who don't like it can move to another state. People are sick of sprawl.
What makes you think Amendment 4 will be the end to sprawl? What if there is a large contingent of voters that would vote in favor of the next Nocatee, Fleming Island etc? Pretty much every special interest group will now have a field day and the ones with the most money will succeed. In Florida, that would be the developers.
QuoteWhat makes you think Amendment 4 will be the end to sprawl. What if there is a large contingent of voters that would vote in favor of the next Nocateek, Fleming Island etc?
Then at least the process would in the open, not done by back room deals by people with special access to the green room behind the City Council chambers.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 14, 2010, 01:29:00 PM
QuoteWhat makes you think Amendment 4 will be the end to sprawl. What if there is a large contingent of voters that would vote in favor of the next Nocateek, Fleming Island etc?
Then at least the process would in the open, not done by back room deals by people with special access to the green room behind the City Council chambers.
Well at least then we could be proud of our sprawl, right? Since it was created on the up and up.
Quote from: cline on October 14, 2010, 01:32:16 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 14, 2010, 01:29:00 PM
QuoteWhat makes you think Amendment 4 will be the end to sprawl. What if there is a large contingent of voters that would vote in favor of the next Nocateek, Fleming Island etc?
Then at least the process would in the open, not done by back room deals by people with special access to the green room behind the City Council chambers.
Well at least then we could be proud of our sprawl, right? Since it was created on the up and up.
I think you may be overestimating floridians' appetite for continued destructive development patterns.
If people cared that much about stopping sprawl, why were there no public speakers opposing the comp. plan amendments in Jax. earlier this year that changed the FLUm on over 3000 rural acres?
Could it be because they were "in the middle of nowhere" so nobody noticed or cared?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 14, 2010, 03:08:18 PM
Quote from: cline on October 14, 2010, 01:32:16 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 14, 2010, 01:29:00 PM
QuoteWhat makes you think Amendment 4 will be the end to sprawl. What if there is a large contingent of voters that would vote in favor of the next Nocateek, Fleming Island etc?
Then at least the process would in the open, not done by back room deals by people with special access to the green room behind the City Council chambers.
Well at least then we could be proud of our sprawl, right? Since it was created on the up and up.
I think you may be overestimating floridians' appetite for continued destructive development patterns.
Judging by what has occurred in the past decade, their appetite seems voracious. It seems that many, once placed within gated communities easily forget that destruction .
Gated communities are getting rather popular lately with the average person. It supposedly provides a safer community with the protection of the guard and gate. Think of the children!
What are the chances that any formal planning commission will be shut down in the future with the passage of Amendment 4?
I have seen plenty of signs around my world........"Say No to Amendment 4"! People that I have talked to around my neighborhood are saying "Yes" to 4! So I guess we are going to find out real soon!!
From an RS&H employee/former FDOT (so you might say they're biased):
The big challenge with Amendment 4 is that ANY developer (whether it is infill changing the overlay to include higher density) or PUD, or if a corner is planned for a gas station and someone wants to change it to allow a daycare center, there will be 1 or 2 votes a year for each county. In these votes, citizens will have a say (which is theoretically good), but in the meantime a developer or landowner has been holding onto land/plans for a full year before there is a vote on the change that will affect the property.
Developers take an added risk to own any land because virtually every development requires some sort of variance or landplan change and they will be able to do nothing for at least a year and will have to spend additional moneys to try to get their development to move forward.
This will probably curb sprawl growth, but inadvertently will hinder any kind of development in the entire state and will most likely affect our desired infill growth as well.
To add to this, voting is expensive, very very expensive. There is even a ballot initiative this year to increase mayoral and other terms by 6 months to guarantee a fall vote for all city positions to cut back on "voting".
Bottom line, as we all know by now there is no simple answer. I would rather allow current procedures and trends rather than vote for Amendment 4. I think we can do like Kissimmee and impose much higher impact fees on developers. (In case you're wondering, Osceola County has the highest impact fees in the state and it actually hasn't slowed growth, but they are better able to pay for necessary infrastructure improvements with the fees)
If Duval County imposes much higher fees, all developers might simply go to St. Johns and Clay and Nassau, so it must be a quad county program.
Developers should not be allowed access to subsidies via infrastructure improvements paid for by existing revenues.
Voters should not be placed in quazi-control of privately owned properties.
I would agree that fees are the way. The big problem is in the financial connections between developers and local/state politicians.
I'm sure there is a better way to break the unholy alliance, but I don't know what it is.
QuoteIf people cared that much about stopping sprawl, why were there no public speakers opposing the comp. plan amendments in Jax. earlier this year that changed the FLUm on over 3000 rural acres?
Could it be because they were "in the middle of nowhere" so nobody noticed or cared?
Exactly! In virtually every poll, the majority of Jacksonville indicates we are squarely in a 'pro-growth' city.
The current growth plan we have in place now was by and large disregarded since its inception b/c no one really has actively enforced it. The growth in Baymeadows and along Beach Blvd were a direct result of not enforcing the comprehensive plan. And that's going back to the late 70's.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 06, 2010, 02:06:59 PM
Florida Tax Watch has looked at the financial impact to taxpayers for Amendment 4
http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/10052010FiscalImpactAmendment4.pdf
I read through that link. The analysis is flawed, because it analyzed the issue in a vacuum, which results in a meaningless conclusion. The paper doesn't even mention the cost of sprawl as compared to the proposed cost if enacting amendment 4. If you factored in the cost of taxpayers paying for all the additional infrastructure these developers get for free (the impact fees don't come hopelessly close to covering even a fraction of it), then this amendment will undoubtedly actually save the taxpayers money. But taxwatch, an organization that is noxiously pro-business, naturally makes no mention of this fact, which would blow up its predetermined conclusion.
ok Chris...since you beleive that analysis is flawed....
try St. Pete Beach (a pretty small place)....they've been embroiled in lawsuits for 28 months (with a cost of close to $1 million to taxpayers) related to their own version of Hometown Democracty....and their redevelopment plans and projects have all been held up because of the lawsuits.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 15, 2010, 09:00:55 AM
ok Chris...since you beleive that analysis is flawed....
try St. Pete Beach (a pretty small place)....they've been embroiled in 28 lawsuits (with a cost of close to $1 million to taxpayers) since 2006 related to their own version of Hometown Democracty....and their redevelopment plans and projects have all been held up because of the lawsuits.
That's a terrible misconception.
The st Pete lawsuits had nothing to do with the amendment, they all stem back to a couple developers who (after st Pete locally passed a mini-version of amendment 4) turned around and lied on the ballot summary sheets by submitting false data and omitting project data, like height, density, and environmental impact, in order to defraud st Pete voters into approving high-density projects via referendum that wouldn't have been approved if they hadn't lied to the voters.
The lawsuits are actually the taxpayers suing their own city government to revoke the approvals, once they found out they'd been lied to and realized the true scale of the projects. How in hell can these same greedy developers who caused the problem in the first place by lying and omitting required data from ballot summaries now turn around and point to the fact that their malfeasance resulted in a lawsuit as somehow proving amendment 4 is bad?
Totally disingenuous, and business as usual for these kind of developers.
http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2010/09/13/story7.html?b=1284350400%5E3923091
Chris, I noticed you used the terminology "notoriously pro-business". Enough said on that. Also, congrats on passing the Bar, I know you are an attorney, could you possibly have a bias here on this amendment because it may open the door to lawsuits? Also, you mentioned that in St. Pete the projects under scrutiny are high density. Doesn't sound like sprawl developments are under scrutiny there. I thought your whole issue for voting for amendment 4 was because it was going to stop sprawl (supposedly). Sounds like it is stopping all development.
I'm not an advocate of lying, but if I was a landowner/developer in St. Pete and I originally wanted to put in some 20 floor condos knowing that I would have to apply for the land use to be changed or setbacks to be changed for my desired architectural scheme and then the mini amendment 4 passed, I would be tempted to lie so that I wouldn't have to wait a year, doing nothing, for the citizenry to hold a "vote" on my specific piece of property and others. (all for a minor setback change or buffer zone change, or something minor).
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 15, 2010, 09:22:17 AM
The lawsuits are actually the taxpayers suing their own city government to revoke the approvals, once they found out they'd been lied to and realized the true scale of the projects.
really? Perhaps it was a small minority...especially considering that the citizens of St. Pete Beach repealed their version of Hometown Democracy three years later....and now the pro-HD folks are suing.
Check this out below....fresh off the presses
Quote
RESOLUTION 2010-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ST. PETE BEACH, FLORIDA, OPPOSING AMENDMENT 4, AN AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD FORCE VOTERS TO DECIDE ALL CHANGES TO A CITY OR COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Whereas, in November 2006 the electors of St. Pete Beach approved their own local version of Amendment 4 a/k/a Hometown Democracy requiring voter referendum approval on all comprehensive plan amendment affecting 5 or more parcels of land; and
Whereas, since November 2006, the electors of St. Pete Beach held referendum elections on 11 comprehensive plan amendments, including 2 elections that would not have otherwise been locally required and including 5 state mandated technical amendments; and
Whereas, in November 2009 the electors of St. Pete Beach voted to substantially modify and repeal many of the voting requirements of their local version of Amendment 4 after experiencing first-hand the burdensome and costly nature of these additional voting referendum to the citizens, taxpayers and local government; and
Whereas, as a result of the requirement that citizens vote on all comprehensive plan amendments, plan amendments exceeding 115 pages in length were subject to a maximum 15 word title and a 75 word ballot summary imposed by law; and
Whereas, subsequent to the June 2008 voter referendum on a Community Redevelopment District comprehensive plan amendment wherein more than 57% of the electorate approved the measure, a single taxpayer sued the City of St. Pete Beach to overturn the majority vote of the people claiming, amongst other things, that the title and 75 word ballot summary was "deceptive and misleading" because it did not contain a description of the issues he believed were the most important issues to the voters of St. Pete Beach; and
Whereas, the City of St. Pete Beach has been ensnared in litigation for over 28 months in nearly a dozen lawsuits stemming from the June referendum on this comprehensive plan amendment in both administrative and judicial forums, defending the vote of the St. Pete Beach electors on this issue and as a result, incurring approximately $750,000 in litigation costs and suffering irreparable economic damage to: 1) the City's operating budget and reserves; 2) the designated Community Redevelopment District, the core business area and economic engine of the City, by forcing all redevelopment efforts to be placed on hold until the litigation is fully resolved; and 3) the community at large including the residential neighborhoods impacted by the stagnated efforts to redevelop, beautify, replace and construct badly needed infrastructure; and
Whereas, Amendment 4 seeks to amend Article II, Section 7, of the Florida Constitution (Title: Referenda Required for Adoption of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans) will be voted on by the citizens of Florida this November 2, 2010; and
Whereas, Amendment 4 proposes even broader voting referendum requirements than the citizens of St. Pete Beach originally adopted in its version of Amendment 4 in November 2006; and
Whereas, Amendment 4 will require voter referendums on all comprehensive plan amendments defined to include all plans that "guide and control future land development in an area under the jurisdiction of a local government;" and
Whereas, the substantial majority of the electorate of St. Pete Beach has already rejected the broad voting referendum requirements proposed by Amendment 4 in November 2009; and
Whereas, the challenges presented by growth and redevelopment require communities embrace smart growth policies aimed at protecting the short and long term quality of life of Floridians that engender economic prosperity and the building of connected communities; and
Whereas, Amendment 4 poses a grave threat to Florida's unique quality of life, the stability of its communities, the prosperity of its economy and will fragment communities rather than bring communities together; and
Whereas, Amendment 4 will further disenfranchise millions of Florida's already fatigued electorate, paralyze local government and unduly burden taxpayers, create unprecedented uncertainty and needless litigation, and cripple the local and State economy.
NOW, THEREFORE the City Commission of the City of St. Pete Beach, Pinellas County, Florida DOES RESOLVE:
Section 1. Having dedicated its own policies to advancing smart growth, recommends defeat of Amendment 4.
Section 2. Having incurred the time and expense of nearly 2-1/2 years of litigation over comprehensive plan amendment litigation and experienced the undue burden on its tax payers and City government, recommends defeat of Amendment 4.
Section 3. Having placed a substantial modification and repeal of its own version of Amendment 4 before its voters and its electorate having overwhelmingly rejected the broad scope and burden imposed on the electorate by Amendment 4, recommends defeat of Amendment 4.
Section 4. Urges citizens of St. Pete Beach and across Florida to vote "No" on Amendment 4 in the November 2010 election.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the City Commission of St. Pete Beach, Pinellas County, Florida on this 12th day of October 2010.
Follow the Money........
Well tufsu, yes it does appear based on your article that the residents of st Pete beach have had quite the change if heart then, haven't they? I hadn't read that they had voted to repeal HD. But still, all the problems with their local version of it started with public outrage over projects gaining voter approval which then turned out far different than what people thought they were approving. If developers had been honest in their ballot summaries, and honest about disclosing the density levels of their projects, it would have worked. But I'll concede it does appear to be kind if a mess over there. Clearly we are going to need to develop some process for ensuring that developers are honest in representing what exactly they want to build when gaining voter approval.
Quote from: simms3 on October 15, 2010, 10:20:52 AM
Chris, I noticed you used the terminology "notoriously pro-business". Enough said on that. Also, congrats on passing the Bar, I know you are an attorney, could you possibly have a bias here on this amendment because it may open the door to lawsuits? Also, you mentioned that in St. Pete the projects under scrutiny are high density. Doesn't sound like sprawl developments are under scrutiny there. I thought your whole issue for voting for amendment 4 was because it was going to stop sprawl (supposedly). Sounds like it is stopping all development.
I'm not an advocate of lying, but if I was a landowner/developer in St. Pete and I originally wanted to put in some 20 floor condos knowing that I would have to apply for the land use to be changed or setbacks to be changed for my desired architectural scheme and then the mini amendment 4 passed, I would be tempted to lie so that I wouldn't have to wait a year, doing nothing, for the citizenry to hold a "vote" on my specific piece of property and others. (all for a minor setback change or buffer zone change, or something minor).
I'm not acting out of bias, and certainly hope we can find a way to do this without causing a flood of litigation. The reason I support this is because I really think the comprehensive land use planning process has been so co-opted by developers that it is a nightmare in it's current form. The voters are unable to control what is built in their own back yard, as local politicians once elected immediately suckle up to developers to feather their nests. There has to be some kind of check and balance.
Let's say I wanted to quietly pick up some houses in ortega, knock them down, and put up a giant condo tower? You guys would go ballistic! But in many areas, particularly oceanfront ones, this is exactly what happens. The developer quietly buys up some land and the next thing anyone knows there is some giant development going in that nobody wants. The units get sold to people from other areas, and the development strains the local infrastructure, which the taxpayers are then stuck upgrading as the impact fees don't come close to covering a fraction of the actual costs.
Developers make back room deals with politicians to get the comp plans changed and pud's approved, often over the objection of the actual community residents. This is wrong, and it should stop. Another separate problem is sprawl-based development patterns, of which Nocatee is a perfect example. This simple can't continue the way it has been, too many people are hacked off over it.
If amendment 4 passes, what are we going to do to ensure that investors of ANY type of project or just investing in buildings/land even spend their money here in FL? If they have plans to re-adapt an urban block for a different use (an urban gentrification process), would they deem it worth it to buy the block parcels in plottage, hold this for up to a year, and wait on the public to vote to change little things like setbacks, land use, variances, and other things? It will be very much more risky for investors, developers, or anyone to make any kinds of RE transactions and plans in the entire state. It just seems too much the mess for me. If I was a landowner in FL right now and thought amendment 4 would pass, I would consider getting out the state completely before it would be enacted. I think it will drop land values considerably because nobody will be able to do anything with any land, so why invest?
Quote from: simms3 on October 15, 2010, 01:46:24 PM
If amendment 4 passes, what are we going to do to ensure that investors of ANY type of project or just investing in buildings/land even spend their money here in FL? If they have plans to re-adapt an urban block for a different use (an urban gentrification process), would they deem it worth it to buy the block parcels in plottage, hold this for up to a year, and wait on the public to vote to change little things like setbacks, land use, variances, and other things? It will be very much more risky for investors, developers, or anyone to make any kinds of RE transactions and plans in the entire state. It just seems too much the mess for me. If I was a landowner in FL right now and thought amendment 4 would pass, I would consider getting out the state completely before it would be enacted. I think it will drop land values considerably because nobody will be able to do anything with any land, so why invest?
I think developers will adapt. You'll see more purchase & sale contracts be written with contingencies for pud or comp plan amendment approval. This is actually already a very common practice now. I don't think much will change from that end, as long as the end user demand is there then there will be development. If the costs go up, then so be it. The cost to taxpayers of operating the way we have been is higher.
Amendment 4 only affects Land Use changes--not setbacks or variances or zoning. Currently Land Use changes are approved by City Council and signed off by the State. Land Use changes are what change the Comp Plan. Setbacks are handled by the Planning Dept. Variances go to the Planning Commission. Rezonings go to City Council as last stop. None of these are part of Amendment 4.
Quote from: simms3 on October 15, 2010, 01:46:24 PM
If amendment 4 passes, what are we going to do to ensure that investors of ANY type of project or just investing in buildings/land even spend their money here in FL? If they have plans to re-adapt an urban block for a different use (an urban gentrification process), would they deem it worth it to buy the block parcels in plottage, hold this for up to a year, and wait on the public to vote to change little things like setbacks, land use, variances, and other things? It will be very much more risky for investors, developers, or anyone to make any kinds of RE transactions and plans in the entire state. It just seems too much the mess for me. If I was a landowner in FL right now and thought amendment 4 would pass, I would consider getting out the state completely before it would be enacted. I think it will drop land values considerably because nobody will be able to do anything with any land, so why invest?
Change little things like land use? LITTLE? Can't do anything with any land?
Can you read? Do you know what a comprehensive land use plan is?
Those aren't even straw midget arguments, much less straw man arguments. Please go do your homework before you post again.
Quote from: Kay on October 15, 2010, 01:57:37 PM
Amendment 4 only affects Land Use changes--not setbacks or variances or zoning. Currently Land Use changes are approved by City Council and signed off by the State. Land Use changes are what change the Comp Plan. Setbacks are handled by the Planning Dept. Variances go to the Planning Commission. Rezonings go to City Council as last stop. None of these are part of Amendment 4.
Quote from: simms3 on October 15, 2010, 01:46:24 PM
If amendment 4 passes, what are we going to do to ensure that investors of ANY type of project or just investing in buildings/land even spend their money here in FL? If they have plans to re-adapt an urban block for a different use (an urban gentrification process), would they deem it worth it to buy the block parcels in plottage, hold this for up to a year, and wait on the public to vote to change little things like setbacks, land use, variances, and other things? It will be very much more risky for investors, developers, or anyone to make any kinds of RE transactions and plans in the entire state. It just seems too much the mess for me. If I was a landowner in FL right now and thought amendment 4 would pass, I would consider getting out the state completely before it would be enacted. I think it will drop land values considerably because nobody will be able to do anything with any land, so why invest?
You know, I sometimes forget that myself in these amendment 4 discussions.
The amendment 4 detractors have done such a good job misinforming the public that most people truly believe that when aunt Sally wants to put up a new mailbox, or a new gas station wants to open up, or a flock of migratory birds wants to land on a vacant lot, it's going to require a voter referendum. That is deliberate misinformation, is not the case, but unfortunately I think a lot of people do believe that.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 15, 2010, 01:58:18 PM
Change little things like land use? LITTLE? Can't do anything with any land?
Can you read? Do you know what a comprehensive land use plan is?
Those aren't even straw midget arguments, much less straw man arguments. Please go do your homework before you post again.
I think Simms fell victim to the misinformation campaign I described above. A lot of people have been told that amendment 4 would require the voters to approve every tiny little thing related to land use and zoning, which simply isn't true. You have a lot of people that seem to think they'll need voter approval to build a shed. They were lied to.
What is the difference between a change in land-use and rezoning?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 15, 2010, 02:12:26 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 15, 2010, 01:58:18 PM
Change little things like land use? LITTLE? Can't do anything with any land?
Can you read? Do you know what a comprehensive land use plan is?
Those aren't even straw midget arguments, much less straw man arguments. Please go do your homework before you post again.
I think Simms fell victim to the misinformation campaign I described above. A lot of people have been told that amendment 4 would require the voters to approve every tiny little thing related to land use and zoning, which simply isn't true. You have a lot of people that seem to think they'll need voter approval to build a shed. They were lied to.
Keep an eye on the Hometown site for continual updates and explanations on a tidal wave of mis-info.
It is appaerent most citizens are not well versed on growth management,issues in the field and their very own standing-by rule- in the process.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 15, 2010, 01:58:18 PM
Do you know what a comprehensive land use plan is?
actually nobody does....because there is nothing in the comp. plan called this....there is the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Plan.
this is one of many things about Amendment 4 that becomes confusing....some believe it coul lead to an interpretation of any change to land use (which could in fact mean zoning).
I can't speak on why the resolution is so strongly worded, but yes, it passed unanimously.
From what I know of St. Pete Beach, their entire economy has been stymied by their version of Hometown Democracy....and keep in mind it passed in 2006, before the economy tanked....when the general citizens saw the destructive force of the HD laws they had voted in, they changed course and repealed them....unfortunately that hasn't stopped the pro-HD folks from filing lawsuit after lawsuit.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 08:09:45 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 15, 2010, 01:58:18 PM
Do you know what a comprehensive land use plan is?
actually nobody does....because there is nothing in the comp. plan called this....there is the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Plan.
this is one of many things about Amendment 4 that becomes confusing....some believe it coul lead to an interpretation of any change to land use (which could in fact mean zoning).
Tufsu...
Am I reading this right? Are you denying that there is any such thing as a Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
As a quick example, then what would you call this;
http://www.ci.neptune-beach.fl.us/misc_pdfs/CompPlan06.pdf
Seriously? Is this a joke?
Well they had a good redevlopment plan that went before the voters....they approved it and then the City was sued by pro HD folks who were unhappy the voters said YES to something.
Nobody should think Amendment 4 is about stopping sprawl....it is about stopping all changes....or getting to NO....if that wasn't the case, the amendment would have been written to require referendum on all changes....instead it is just those recommended by the governmental body for approval
Trust me.,..I asked the author that question point blank 3 years ago
chris...I assure you there is nothing officially called a "Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan"....there is the comp plan, future land use element, and future land use map.
This is the point....some might think this would require voter approval for ANY change to the comp plan at all....which, for example, includes the capital improvements element (updated annually)
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 08:09:45 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 15, 2010, 01:58:18 PM
Do you know what a comprehensive land use plan is?
actually nobody does....because there is nothing in the comp. plan called this....there is the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Plan.
this is one of many things about Amendment 4 that becomes confusing....some believe it coul lead to an interpretation of any change to land use (which could in fact mean zoning).
And Tufsu, have you bothered to read the actual title of Amendment 4? The name of the amendment is:
Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans.
If you don't believe me, check Chapter 163 FS
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 09:20:24 AM
chris...I assure you there is nothing officially called a "Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan"....there is the comp plan, future land use element, and future land use map.
This is the point....some might think this would require voter approval for ANY change to the comp plan at all....which, for example, includes the capital improvements element (updated annually)
A: I said Comprehensive Land Use Plan (so at least quote me accurately)
and,
B: I just posted a link to an actual Comprehensive Land Use Plan that you clearly didn't bother to read.
So, then I must ask, if there is no such thing as a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, then what is that Comprehensive Land Use Plan I just posted? And why is the actual title of Amendment 4 called
Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans?
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 09:22:18 AM
If you don't believe me, check Chapter 163 FS
Not only do I not believe you, you're just plain wrong.
I've already posted an actual Comprehensive Land Use Plan as an example for you. So if there are no such thing as Comprehensive Land Use Plans, then what is that Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
Like I said before, and that you ignored;
If there is no such thing as a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, then what is this Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
http://www.ci.neptune-beach.fl.us/misc_pdfs/CompPlan06.pdf
LMFAO, seriously?
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
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 09:34:07 AM
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.
please show me where in 163.3177 the words "Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan" are used....here's the beginning...
Quote163.3177
Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys.
â€"
(1)
The comprehensive plan shall consist of materials in such descriptive form, written or graphic, as may be appropriate to the prescription of principles, guidelines, and standards for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area.
followed by this a bit further down
Quote(e)
At the discretion of the local government and notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, a comprehensive plan, as revised by an amendment to the plan’s future land use map,
and
Quote(6)
In addition to the requirements of subsections (1)-(5) and (12), the comprehensive plan shall include the following elements:
(a)
A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land.
Unless I missed it somewhere, those exact words are not used....which is the problem....it could be interpreted (and has been by some of the promoters) that any portion of the comp. plan proposed to be changed is up for a vote...that includes the capital improvements element, the transportation/traffic circulation element, recreation/open space, infrastructure (sewer, water, etc), housing, etc.
Plus, when it comes time to do the required update (traffic and capital improvements elements are often updated every year), they would be subject to referendum.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 07:03:46 PM
please show me where in 163.3177 the words "Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan" are used....here's the beginning...
Quote163.3177
Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys.
â€"
(1)
The comprehensive plan shall consist of materials in such descriptive form, written or graphic, as may be appropriate to the prescription of principles, guidelines, and standards for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area.
followed by this a bit further down
Quote(e)
At the discretion of the local government and notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, a comprehensive plan, as revised by an amendment to the plan’s future land use map,
and
Quote(6)
In addition to the requirements of subsections (1)-(5) and (12), the comprehensive plan shall include the following elements:
(a)
A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land.
Unless I missed it somewhere, those exact words are not used....which is the problem....it could be interpreted (and has been by some of the promoters) that any portion of the comp. plan proposed to be changed is up for a vote...that includes the capital improvements element, the transportation/traffic circulation element, recreation/open space, infrastructure (sewer, water, etc), housing, etc.
Plus, when it comes time to do the required update (traffic and capital improvements elements are often updated every year), they would be subject to referendum.
Answer my question (that I've asked 5 times now):
If there's no such thing as a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, then what is that Comprehensive Land Use Plan that I posted? Here, let me post it AGAIN:
http://www.ci.neptune-beach.fl.us/misc_pdfs/CompPlan06.pdf
Enough crap already. Answer the question. (Of course I know you can't, since you're wrong...it's rhetorical)
And tufsu, if there's no such thing, then why would the Amendment 4 be titled this;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38421848/Florida-Comprehensive-Land-Use-Plans-Amendment-4-2010-Ballotpedia
Did you actually bother to read the amendment's title before trying to argue there is no such thing? This is laughable,
Semantics, semantics. Different communities have different words for the same general type of plan. Different cities also often have completely different policies for adopting land use plans. Different cities and different metros also have different governmental hierarchies of municipal governments and transit agencies and MPOs and state agencies like the FDOT.
Sometimes a municipality's land use plan conflicts with the MPO's regional plan. What happens then? When there is a change are voters changing the municipality's plan or the MPO's? And at one point does the MPO's override the municipality's? More progressive metros in the country are seeing more powerful MPO's in order to enact regional planning.
The transit agencies in conjunction with the MPO and SDOT usually have two "plans" with land use included. The 4 year (usually) TIPs (transportation improvement programs) and a ~30 year master plan that is also often updated. Would voters vote on these, too?
The bottom line is that plans are created in different processes with different plan hierarchies in different metros. It is all quite complicated. The importance of governmental planning agencies is constantly shifting nowadays, too, so who's plans will be up for vote under the Amendment? Also, because of all of this complication that even we have trouble understanding (I get the feeling city planners and transportation planners get mucked up in their own organizational schemes sometimes) how the heck is the populace going to understand what's going on? These plans have a purpose. If Amendment 4 is enacted does that mean that we the citizenry are going to get an annual or semi-annual "lesson" to better understand the various components of all the different plans and all the eventual goals for the plans (like why is certain land zoned certain ways and different inclusions and exclusions...I noticed "no new strip centers along 3rd street" in the Neptune Beach plan).
Amendment 4 is not going to solve anything. It could possibly be one of the worst pieces of legislation. It sounds good (that's what it seems like it's trying to do).
What the ARC (Atlanta Regional Council) does is simply keep the public apprised on general developments and goals of the organization. For its Plan 2040 it seeked public input via workshops and online polls. Before one could answer any of the poll questions, though, one had to watch 5 ~2-4 minute videos for an explanation about the basic components of the plan. The poll questions were generalized, too. Ex. What kind of growth pattern makes sense for Atlanta based on the options presented to you in video 3? (6 options...) And no crazy vocabulary is used and everything is presented well. They also have polls with specific questions and a scaled answer section (something like "does having places to bike/jog have: great importance down to no importance").
Instead of leaving these kind of votes to the public and what not, why not just inform the public more, ask for input, and actually implement whatever plan is then enacted? There are too many complications and unanswered questions, and if we here on MJ are having trouble understanding things, just imagine the 18 million other people in FL! It's going to be an absolute mess!
Whereas, Amendment 4 will require voter referendums on all comprehensive plan amendments defined to include all plans that "guide and control future land development in an area under the jurisdiction of a local government;" and
This is from the St. Pete Beach case. This wording seems like it could lead to complications. How many land use plans are there for any given jurisdiction within a metro area? More than one. And any plan that guides and controls future development sounds like any plan that has one or more of the following: amendments (like the Neptune Beach plan Chris presented above), zoning regulations (zoning includes variances, non-conforming, bulk zoning (setbacks, etc), and anything of this nature...overlays and such, buffers, etc), TIPs, and MPO master plans. That's a lot of plans that could be encompassed by the legislation. That's A LOT of voting, even if for just one plan.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 16, 2010, 07:49:21 PM
And tufsu, if there's no such thing, then why would the Amendment 4 be titled this;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38421848/Florida-Comprehensive-Land-Use-Plans-Amendment-4-2010-Ballotpedia
Did you actually bother to read the amendment's title before trying to argue there is no such thing? This is laughable,
Chris...I didn't respond to the Neptune Beach situation because I am out of town and was posting on my phone earlier...
Yes, I do know what the title of the amendment is....I've been following Hometown Democracy since 2003.
Now having looked at Neptune Beach....that is the title of their document (local governments can call their comp. plan whatever they want)....think of it like a pronoun, not a noun....the amendment is referring to the noun, which doesn't exist in Florida law
If the title was the problem, any community using thattitle could simpoly rename their comp. plan and nt have to abide by the amendment (if it were to pass)...does that make any sense to you?
Quote from: simms3 on October 16, 2010, 08:40:10 PM
Whereas, Amendment 4 will require voter referendums on all comprehensive plan amendments defined to include all plans that "guide and control future land development in an area under the jurisdiction of a local government;" and
This is from the St. Pete Beach case. This wording seems like it could lead to complications. How many land use plans are there for any given jurisdiction within a metro area? More than one. And any plan that guides and controls future development sounds like any plan that has one or more of the following: amendments (like the Neptune Beach plan Chris presented above), zoning regulations (zoning includes variances, non-conforming, bulk zoning (setbacks, etc), and anything of this nature...overlays and such, buffers, etc), TIPs, and MPO master plans. That's a lot of plans that could be encompassed by the legislation. That's A LOT of voting, even if for just one plan.
Exactly!
It's just like that ammendment a few years ago about class size. It sounds good but no body can afford it.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 09:21:22 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 16, 2010, 07:49:21 PM
And tufsu, if there's no such thing, then why would the Amendment 4 be titled this;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38421848/Florida-Comprehensive-Land-Use-Plans-Amendment-4-2010-Ballotpedia
Did you actually bother to read the amendment's title before trying to argue there is no such thing? This is laughable,
Chris...I didn't respond to the Neptune Beach situation because I am out of town and was posting on my phone earlier...
Yes, I do know what the title of the amendment is....I've been following Hometown Democracy since 2003.
Now having looked at Neptune Beach....that is the title of their document (local governments can call their comp. plan whatever they want)....think of it like a pronoun, not a noun....the amendment is referring to the noun, which doesn't exist in Florida law
If the title was the problem, any community using thattitle could simpoly rename their comp. plan and nt have to abide by the amendment (if it were to pass)...does that make any sense to you?
Sounds like a lot of equivocation. You were the one arguing that municipalities couldn't call it whatever they want, claiming there is no such thing as a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and that one got rejected simply because they attempted to call it that. Clearly, as I've pointed out all along, that is incorrect.
So as it turns out, you now acknowledge there is in fact such a thing! So we are in agreement.
And FWIW, "Comp Plan" and "Comprehensive Plan" are both short for Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
This was seriously the dumbest argument I've ever had on here. Truly ridiculous.
Chris...you're being ridiculous....I never said local governments couldn't name their comp. plan whatever they want....but statutorily (sp?), it is still a local government comprehensive plan!
and no...comprehensive plan (or comp. plan) is not short for comprehenvive land use plan...which should be obvious given that land use is only one element of the plan!
Yes clearly you never said any such thing...
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 09:34:07 AM
Dude....the city of st pete just tried to do this....DCA wouldn't let them because there was nothing in Floridaa Statutes allowing it
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 10:20:22 PM
and no...comprehensive plan (or comp. plan) is not short for comprehenvive land use plan...which should be obvious given that land use is only one element of the plan!
And yes, that's exactly what's it's short for. You're a planner and you're actually arguing this?
Gentlemen............short answer is "Yes"...........voters will approve or disapprove! Seems kinda simple to me! Maybe because I am a simple person? I, personally, have no problem making time to cast that vote if I want the best we can have or afford! Days of shotgun developement, unbrindled sprawl and the strip malls from hell ,along with bulldozing every tree in sight, should be over with.
QuoteDays of shotgun developement, unbrindled sprawl and the strip malls from hell ,along with bulldozing every tree in sight, should be over with.
Neither option stops any of these.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 17, 2010, 07:30:58 AM
QuoteDays of shotgun developement, unbrindled sprawl and the strip malls from hell ,along with bulldozing every tree in sight, should be over with.
Neither option stops any of these.
But it does hold up any kind of progress on any kind of development and costs the taxpayer more money to implement (voting is expensive). If voting for amendment 4 does indeed take an economic toll on the state by hindering any and all new development, can we afford that right now? FL property values will plummet and all growth aside from immigration into Miami will be stymied further.
No ultimate answer lake, but atleast the voters will have some say in things that apply to their area! Concurrency has not worked, at least in my world and the departments that are supposed to control those issue's have not or have been bought off by developers or have looked at the revenue income without taking into account all of the "what if's" within the effected, or to be, developed area..............something needs to be done and what we have now is not working!
^How does traffic concurrency (its being replaced with the mobility fee in Jax) play into this discussion? The best way to change public department strategy and mentality is through elections. If the general public is ignorant enough to keep placing the same ole same ole in charge, don't expect this route to turn out any better. Does anyone have an estimate of how much a typical public referendum cost taxpayers on average?
Simms3, I don't know about the rest of the state but we've got so much land already vested, it will have no impact on slowing sprawl. The greater impact will be on urban infill projects where current comp plans allow for automobile oriented development instead of walkable. In general, corridors like Philips, Baymeadows, Main, Lem Turner, Emerson, etc. will have less of a chance to redevelop as sustainable walkable districts.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 16, 2010, 10:30:30 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 10:20:22 PM
and no...comprehensive plan (or comp. plan) is not short for comprehenvive land use plan...which should be obvious given that land use is only one element of the plan!
And yes, that's exactly what's it's short for. You're a planner and you're actually arguing this?
and you're showing how little you know about planning/growth management in Florida.
but let's assume you are correct....if comprehensive plan and comprehensive future land use plan are synonymous, wouldn't that mean Amendment 4 is subjecting the entire plan to public referendum if there was a proposed change?
Here's the City of Jacksonville plan
http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning+and+Development/Community+Planning/Comprehensive+Plan/2030+Comprehensive+Plan.htm
Do you really want to go to the polls for every text change to this document?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 16, 2010, 10:27:52 PM
Yes clearly you never said any such thing...
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 09:34:07 AM
Dude....the city of st pete just tried to do this....DCA wouldn't let them because there was nothing in Floridaa Statutes allowing it
ok so maybe I didn't explain this well....the City tried to adopt a simpler future land use map (in addition to the one they already have) called the comprehensive future land use plan....here's an article about it
http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/dailyloaf/2010/09/17/amid-public-outcry-st-petersburg-city-council-tables-new-land-use-map/
Now I am not advocating for what St. Petersburg tried to do....but the reality is that the only way referenda on all "comprehensive land use" changes would work is if the land use categories were much broader and simpler....thereby minimizing the need/desire to change them
I am voting "NO".
We have elections to put people in office to make decisions.
If we do not like what their decisions, we can vote them out.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 17, 2010, 07:30:58 AM
QuoteDays of shotgun developement, unbrindled sprawl and the strip malls from hell ,along with bulldozing every tree in sight, should be over with.
Neither option stops any of these.
Which is why 4 doesnt solve the problems that created the amendment in the first place... so, you're essentially just throwing out the baby with the bath water.
If 4 resulted in a type of zero sum game, I would at least consider it.
Wouldnt a better solution be to focus on changes to impact fees? This would increase the barriers to entry without costing the public in the form of astronomically higher election costs(elections are anything but cheap). Citizens barely go to the FREE public meetings as is now.
Not sure changes to impact fee's would do it. Concurrency was supposed to alleviate problems where a development was taking place and what happened...........those fee's were not even used where they were needed at the impacted area. Elected officials being removed after they have allready ok'd a development does nothing to keep a development from taking place.......so something different needs to happen but for right now Amendment 4 is it..............so vote as you see fit and we will see just what happens!
Going either way on Amendment 4 also has no real impact on traffic concurrency. Besides, concurrency is about to be replaced by the mobility fee.
OK lake! Land useage and comp plans is what 4 will affect. Mobility Fee is still controled by elected officials who can be bought and paid for by those that can afford them......public just puts them into office! One of these days we might get some people in there who will actually govern by the publics wishes.........one of these days!
The fee, if passed as proposed, has a pretty good structure for determining the proper fees associated with both large and small developments regardless of land use. That's something we really can't say about the existing concurrency system. As for elected officials, at the end of the day their performance goes back to the general public who put them in office. No amount of modifying rules will effectively offset the amount of ignorance exhibited by us when we continue to elect more of the same.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 17, 2010, 08:31:47 PM
The fee, if passed as proposed, has a pretty good structure for determining the proper fees associated with both large and small developments regardless of land use. That's something we really can't say about the existing concurrency system. As for elected officials, at the end of the day their performance goes back to the general public who put them in office. No amount of modifying rules will effectively offset the amount of ignorance exhibited by us when we continue to elect more of the same.
Fees are French for Taxes.
No fees please.....
= NO to #4
Call them what you want but the mobility fee is a user fee. In this case, the one who adds traffic to roads pays for that additional traffic with money going to increasing road, transit, bike and pedestrian capacity in the surrounding area. Since these things don't pay for themselves, without them the public will be paying extra taxes to fund and maintain existing and additional public infrastructure.
^^That. And those are pass throughs to the customers/users of the development.
Also, might I add that since some people keep referring to elected officials "going against the public wishes" and being bought by developers who want to build a suburban PUD or subdivision:
The highest growth is in our suburbs. There are three general types of people in NE FL. There are the types who want *no* new growth and call everyone who moves here a damn yankee (and blames all problems on new residents). Then there are the types who move here and prefer to live in the urban core. Unfortunately this is less than 20% of people. The now largest constituency is the group of transplanted families who need good schools for their children and they want a yard and so called privacy, as well as "amenities", and to this group of people the Nocatees, WGVs, Palencias, Fleming Islands, Julington Creek Plantations, etc are just perfect.
The diversion with the third group is where some of these people move here to a certain type of development, and then want all future growth to stop. They don't want others to follow in their footsteps and have the same lifestyle that they so desired because it would add congestion. A recent prominent example of this is the lady from Huntsville, AL who moved to Jax Beach, I believe to a condo, and then personally spearheaded the movement to place height limits and stricter bulk zoning codes in Jax Beaches (basically to halt further growth). Others that move to the suburban communities realize that their HOAs could go down if their community was built out and they could have closer amenities and more options if more people moved nearby (and they are willing to put up with more congestion in the short term).
Either way, much of the public does actually want the suburban PUD style growth. 2 easier ways to solve current problems are to fix Duval schools so that more people are willing to move to Jacksonville as opposed to Clay and St. Johns and to change land use plans to limit dendritic accretion style growth and go for a more "planned" accretion style where various communities would have better flow and connectivity.
Our essential problem is gated communities, and that's what the people want. If you think Amendment 4 is going to all of a sudden put an end to gated communities because you think people will vote down what they want, you are crazy. All amendment 4 will do is delay the inevitable, cost the taxpayer, lower land values (I take my property value comment earlier back...I think it could raise current improved land), and reduce investment in the state. Companies will reconsider relocating here if they know there is going to be an issue with relocating employees because of the effects Amendment 4 could have.
QuoteA recent prominent example of this is the lady from Huntsville, AL who moved to Jax Beach, I believe to a condo, and then personally spearheaded the movement to place height limits and stricter bulk zoning codes in Jax Beaches (basically to halt further growth).
I lived at the beaches when this was going on, and the height limits were quite the contentious issue. I find it relevant that since the height limits were passed, Jax Beach officials have been on the record as saying that very successful projects like the condo complex next to the Ritz, Fionn McCools, etc.. that has a mixture of condos(that are very nice btw), self-contained parking, and retail/restaurants on ground level that encourage pedestrian activity... will be limited in the future b/c a building like this will exceed height limits. And they now see the success of such buildings and wish they had a few more like it. Its the law of unintended consequences at play.
The law of unintended consequences is exactly why I oppose 4. It(4) does nothing to solve the problem that created the movement for its existence in the first place... and IMO will open a can of worms that will place a huge financial burden on the public in its wake.
QuoteIf you think Amendment 4 is going to all of a sudden put an end to gated communities because you think people will vote down what they want, you are crazy.
Simms does make a very good point(but thats not why I oppose 4). Now and historically, the majority of the city does not see sprawl as a problem. Again, go back to what was called the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. It was the city's growth management plan from as early as the 70's. It was never given proper enforcement b/c the overall majority of citizens didn't see sprawl as a problem, and the polls show almost exactly similar numbers today on this very issue.
See Sunday Oct 17 Miami Herald Carl Hiaasen piece for some little reported insight that will enrage some.........
link?
Quote from: fieldafm on October 18, 2010, 11:01:03 AM
link?
"Running Scared Over Amendment 4"
Learn how your tax dollars have helped bank roll opposition
Carl Hiassen
miamiherald.com
www.miamiherald.com/carl_hiassen
Impact fees, DCA, land use plans, growth management, water management districts, concurrency, zoning, planning commissions, etc. - all tools to manage growth that have failed to deliver as promised. The question is why? The main reason given is developer influence over politicians. You can say the public elects these guys and should chose others if they don't like the job they do. However, to get elected, it takes big money and the developers provide it. So, the only viable candidates we have to chose from are ones that will give in to corrupting the growth management process. The proof is in the decades of making the pudding.
Amendment 4 represents the total frustration with all of the above programs cumulatively failing. I still haven't seen a realistic fix for the current situation. As such, at least Amendment 4 may, good or bad, serve as a catalyst for a bipartisan fix that, heretofore, has not been pushed for lack of pressure. It already has succeeded in putting the growth management process at the forefront of political discussion in this State. I don't remember this much focus on same in a very long time, if ever.
A couple of months back, I heard Sec. of DCA, Tom Pelham, speak about the recent legislation affecting the state. He mainly focused on the recent Senate bill removing traffic concurrency, a tool of growth management.
Also, maybe because he knows he is going out with the new administration, he was very outspoken about failure to pass a Citizen Planning bill of Rights in 2007. The legislature saw to it that the bill never made it out of the first committee. DCA is under Sunset Review right now so we could see the end of state growth management agency this year.
I think, Amendment 4, if it passes, will see alot of potiential changes..........we need to do something since what we have does not appear to work well at all!
Quote from: Jumpinjack on October 18, 2010, 12:42:06 PM
Also, maybe because he knows he is going out with the new administration, he was very outspoken about failure to pass a Citizen Planning bill of Rights in 2007. The legislature saw to it that the bill never made it out of the first committee. DCA is under Sunset Review right now so we could see the end of state growth management agency this year.
It was basically killed due to significant lobbying from the building community.
Fancy that!
Quote from: Jumpinjack on October 18, 2010, 12:42:06 PM
A couple of months back, I heard Sec. of DCA, Tom Pelham, speak about the recent legislation affecting the state. He mainly focused on the recent Senate bill removing traffic concurrency, a tool of growth management.
Also, maybe because he knows he is going out with the new administration, he was very outspoken about failure to pass a Citizen Planning bill of Rights in 2007. The legislature saw to it that the bill never made it out of the first committee. DCA is under Sunset Review right now so we could see the end of state growth management agency this year.
Long time DCA staffer Charles Gauthier has been a pawn of political Growth "Management" whims- dumped at the tail end of the J.Bush administration.
Tom Pelham's placement had the effect of seducing many enviro in to a false sense of satisfaction.Could this have been by design??
So many under reported or not reported aspects...........
Quote from: stjr on October 18, 2010, 12:24:13 PM
Impact fees, DCA, land use plans, growth management, water management districts, concurrency, zoning, planning commissions, etc. - all tools to manage growth that have failed to deliver as promised.
while this may be true, care to imagine what Florida would look like without these rules?
Something I must mention. Charlotte actually seems to let sprawl just happen. The city sprawls way more than Jacksonville. The difference is that Charlotte doesn't seem to spend its resources incentivizing or assisting the sprawl. What I mean is their highway system is not as developed as ours. I doubt they pay for much or any of the infrastructure. It seems they don't care what happens in the suburbs because to them if people want to live all the way out there so be it. The city clearly invests a higher percentage of its resources into the inner core than the suburbs. Atlanta is much the same way (Atlanta is focusing on "corridors" now rather than growth as a whole).
Also Charlotte's sprawl is at least as ugly as our sprawl if not more. Instead of faux mediterranean it is all brick. There is clearly no planning either.
I don't care about the rest of FL. S FL can become its own state/country imo, but here in Jax knowing that Amendment 4 won't do anything positive for our community (it will either stop all growth/investments or it won't stop sprawl but may stop dense developments), we can enact a few things to do things better. While Charlotte seems to let the suburbs completely do themselves however they want (while they focus solely on the core) we can at least change land plans/zoning regulations to increase suburban density and encourage better street systems that connect. Then we can increase impact fees more. And finally instead of paying to build/widen more highways to assist this sprawl, we can build an inner city transit system.
People are willing and want to live in sprawl. People are not as willing to live in the city. We can simply stop "helping" developers build out in the suburbs and use these re-allocated resources to help Duval schools and infill developments and transit. Amendment 4 does not address this. It does not put an end to incentives and it does not prevent politicians from being friends with developers. It may put an end to sprawl and if it does no new developments are happening, but I think it will just stifle infill developments and still allow sprawl.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 19, 2010, 08:05:37 AM
Quote from: stjr on October 18, 2010, 12:24:13 PM
Impact fees, DCA, land use plans, growth management, water management districts, concurrency, zoning, planning commissions, etc. - all tools to manage growth that have failed to deliver as promised.
while this may be true, care to imagine what Florida would look like without these rules?
Indeed tufsu1.
And the Florida Growth Management network has certainly provided untold billing hours for the Consultant industry.
Beyond that,calls for DCA sunset in favor of more stand alone 'Regional' efforts and staff changes (as per C.Gauthier) are of concern and always prevalent.
Few know that here in Florida,amidst "Growth Management" backdrop current future 'growth' envisions many more millions in population than present today.
Already,what we see is not what we are going to get.
In fact,certain promotions and "Growth Management" profile has contributed to a sense of complacency among the public.
And although public participation in the process,including the all important FLUM (future Land Use Map) is a key feature of Growth management by Rule,many citizens are unaware of the process and prone towards a sense of futility,for good reason.
The only "inevitable" thing about 'growth' will be emerging inherent limits to expansion that will defy stated preference;both social and primarily economic.
On another#4 note- now word is the opponents stepped up a high $$$ campaign in response to news that proponents had a big $$$ war chest.The complete opposite is true,proponents hardly equal in funding.
The well funded opposition effort was a predicted given.
Perhaps the word that proponents had a big war chest was by diabolical design on behalf of opponents.Tid bits like this will prove telling for a long time.
Quote from: north miami on October 19, 2010, 02:13:05 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 19, 2010, 08:05:37 AM
Quote from: stjr on October 18, 2010, 12:24:13 PM
Impact fees, DCA, land use plans, growth management, water management districts, concurrency, zoning, planning commissions, etc. - all tools to manage growth that have failed to deliver as promised.
while this may be true, care to imagine what Florida would look like without these rules?
Looking at what we have right now, I have to say that the rules are not doing a whole heck of a lot!
well CS...prior to growth management, Florida got places like Lehigh Acres, Cape Coral, and Rotunda....that was 40+ years ago....check Google for aerial views of those places today!
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 17, 2010, 09:13:06 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 16, 2010, 10:30:30 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 10:20:22 PM
and no...comprehensive plan (or comp. plan) is not short for comprehenvive land use plan...which should be obvious given that land use is only one element of the plan!
And yes, that's exactly what's it's short for. You're a planner and you're actually arguing this?
and you're showing how little you know about planning/growth management in Florida.
but let's assume you are correct....if comprehensive plan and comprehensive future land use plan are synonymous, wouldn't that mean Amendment 4 is subjecting the entire plan to public referendum if there was a proposed change?
Here's the City of Jacksonville plan
http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning+and+Development/Community+Planning/Comprehensive+Plan/2030+Comprehensive+Plan.htm
Do you really want to go to the polls for every text change to this document?
Well yes, that is exactly what amendment 4 is supposed to accomplish. But I'm not sure that comprehensive land use plans were intended to be amended constantly in order to pander to developers. That's kind of the whole point here, isn't it?
Whether or not it is the most elegant solution is certainly up for debate. What would you suggest? People are sick of the status quo. Something should be done. What would you suggest?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 21, 2010, 03:13:03 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 17, 2010, 09:13:06 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 16, 2010, 10:30:30 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 10:20:22 PM
and no...comprehensive plan (or comp. plan) is not short for comprehenvive land use plan...which should be obvious given that land use is only one element of the plan!
And yes, that's exactly what's it's short for. You're a planner and you're actually arguing this?
and you're showing how little you know about planning/growth management in Florida.
but let's assume you are correct....if comprehensive plan and comprehensive future land use plan are synonymous, wouldn't that mean Amendment 4 is subjecting the entire plan to public referendum if there was a proposed change?
Here's the City of Jacksonville plan
http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning+and+Development/Community+Planning/Comprehensive+Plan/2030+Comprehensive+Plan.htm
Do you really want to go to the polls for every text change to this document?
Well yes, that is exactly what amendment 4 is supposed to accomplish. But I'm not sure that comprehensive land use plans were intended to be amended constantly in order to pander to developers. That's kind of the whole point here, isn't it?
Whether or not it is the most elegant solution is certainly up for debate. What would you suggest? People are sick of the status quo. Something should be done. What would you suggest?
Great question. I'm not sure what the solution should be. The current system is obviously broken and ripe for a complete overhaul. However, the proposed solution (Amendment 4) is overkill. There must be some sort of middle ground. The problem is that we have a system that can is easily manipulated by those with money. As I mentioned earlier, that would be developers and builders. City councilman, county commissioners et. al. owe those that "contribute" to their campaign- even if it conflicts with what their constiutency wants. It doesn't matter what staff planners for local governments recommends when their hands are basically tied by their council or commission members (i.e. their employers). But I don't know what the answer is to this. Perhaps we need to focus on electing those that will stand up for what will benefit their consituency as a whole rather than those few that attend a fundraiser. Unfortunately, politicians can only see as far as the next election.
Not that I've made up my mind on Amendment 4, but surely there's a better line of argument in support than:
Something needs to be done.
Amendment 4 is something.
Therefore, Amendment 4 needs to be done.
Right? I mean, that train of thought is extremely less than persuasive.
Quote from: Clem1029 on October 21, 2010, 03:55:37 PM
Not that I've made up my mind on Amendment 4, but surely there's a better line of argument in support than:
Something needs to be done.
Amendment 4 is something.
Therefore, Amendment 4 needs to be done.
Right? I mean, that train of thought is extremely less than persuasive.
It is less than persuasive but unfortunately, it is the situation we find ourselves in right now. The really unfortunate part is that the planning/growth management community has known about Amendment 4 (in some form or fashion) for many years now and has failed to put forth any better solution. The Citizens Bill or Rights was the only thing and that was killed/watered down to nothing by politicos (lobbyist's for developers) in no time. I heard Sec. Pelham (DCA) make that point just recently.
Rick Scott says that he will abolish the Department of Community Affairs if he is elected governor.
Quote from: Clem1029 on October 21, 2010, 03:55:37 PM
Not that I've made up my mind on Amendment 4, but surely there's a better line of argument in support than:
Something needs to be done.
Amendment 4 is something.
Therefore, Amendment 4 needs to be done.
Right? I mean, that train of thought is extremely less than persuasive.
Pretty much sums it up.
But I'm still voting for it. I'd prefer that logic to Nocatee any day.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 21, 2010, 04:21:23 PM
But I'm still voting for it. I'd prefer that logic to Nocatee any day.
you do realize that Duval County residents wouldn't be able to vote on Nocatee anyway....unless you count the samll portion that is in Duval?
Yikes...y'all just made me flash back to my policy debate judging days - any position that uses that as it's only supporting argument is an automatic loss.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 21, 2010, 04:30:20 PM
you do realize that Duval County residents wouldn't be able to vote on Nocatee anyway....unless you count the samll portion that is in Duval?
I do tufsu..............so it would seem that a county would have to have the voters blessing inorder to do something like Nocatee in Duval County...........or within the county that the project is slated to be within? The problem with this is what? Amendment 4 is statewide, but county focused.........this is not a problem that I can see!
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 21, 2010, 05:40:55 PM
The problem with this is what? Amendment 4 is statewide, but county focused.........this is not a problem that I can see!
nope...not County focused....jurisdiction focused....Duval only has a few because of consolidation, but Pinellas has 28 and Broward has around 50
Part of the problem with Atlanta's current planning and transit issues stems from the fact that the various local jurisdictions in the inner counties and the different counties themselves can't agree on anything. That is part of the reason that led to MARTA now having a seat at the table under the general umbrella of the MPO. If Tufsu is correct, then an MPO could essentially be powerless to local small jurisdictions. Any "regional" plan will be killed and "regional" transit plans may also be killed (well I guess the state government can enforce emminent domain in the latter case right?).
Putting more power in the hands of citizens when it comes to planning will probably be worse than leaving the planning in the hands of bought off politicians.
Quote from: simms3 on October 21, 2010, 09:41:47 PM
Putting more power in the hands of citizens when it comes to planning will probably be worse than leaving the planning in the hands of bought off politicians.
Well, yes, but the second half of that question is "worse for who"?
read my entire short post. worse for enacting a regional plan and worse for getting any multi-jurisdictional transit systems operating.
An MPO along with the SDOT and major local transit agency puts out two comprehensive plans: TIPs that plan for every 4 or so years and long term master plans that get revised every so often but plan for the next 30 years. How will these happen when the citizens have the power and who knows what the citizens will do? Will the citizens not vote and/or allow anything under the sun to be built? Or will the citizens vote down any change thereby prohibiting any new developments? Is it possible for developers to influence and/or buy off the citizenry? Sure! Would the developers in that case abide by a formalized TIP or long term plan? Probably not if it did not coincide with their own plans for a property or area.
Quote from: simms3 on October 21, 2010, 10:08:02 PM
read my entire short post. worse for enacting a regional plan and worse for getting any multi-jurisdictional transit systems operating.
An MPO along with the SDOT and major local transit agency puts out two comprehensive plans: TIPs that plan for every 4 or so years and long term master plans that get revised every so often but plan for the next 30 years. How will these happen when the citizens have the power and who knows what the citizens will do? Will the citizens not vote and/or allow anything under the sun to be built? Or will the citizens vote down any change thereby prohibiting any new developments? Is it possible for developers to influence and/or buy off the citizenry? Sure! Would the developers in that case abide by a formalized TIP or long term plan? Probably not if it did not coincide with their own plans for a property or area.
Well you can buy anything I suppose, but I guess the idea behind it is that buying off an entire electorate is much more expensive than buying off a couple legislators, and would probably be outside most developers' budgets. But you may have a point about babies getting swept out with bathwater. I would hate to see mass transit be affected.
It would be out of the small developer's budget (the kind of developer who will do smaller infill projects or smaller scale projects in general). Many large developers are actually really large corporations, and if they have to spend an additional $mil to heavily advertise and essentially buy off the electorate with added stuff the electorate wants, that is very easily done and very worth it/possible for large developers. Hines developed Palencia. Hines was also going to do the 51 floor St. John. Hines isn't even necessarily the kind of large developer I am envisioning. FI's have huge stakes in large developments and want/need them to succeed, so inadvertently BofA could assist in buying off the electorate if it meant their $250 mil loan on a massive suburban PUD would pay off. I don't know if this would be allowed under the new regulations that were passed (for a variety of complicated reasons), but it's not out of the realm of possibilities.
Developers can range from large PE firms you have never even heard of to major life companies to GE Capital to basically most large financial/insurance firms in addition to the full service real estate firms and REITs.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 21, 2010, 10:14:10 PM
But you may have a point about babies getting swept out with bathwater. I would hate to see mass transit be affected.
As stated before, the amendmnet authors have one goal....getting to NO...they told me and 100 other people that straight up 3 years ago...that means stopping just about all development changes (yes, even the good ones).
All the developers have to do is follow the current comprehensive plan and they won't have to ask for changes.
Why is this such a burden?
How is this getting to NO development?
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 21, 2010, 04:18:06 PM
Rick Scott says that he will abolish the Department of Community Affairs if he is elected governor.
That's funny. Did he really say that?
I hope everyone that wanted to be more educated on the issue watched Melissa Ross' Amendment 4 special last night on PBS.
She is a great transplanted asset to our city!
Quote from: British Shoe Company on October 22, 2010, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 21, 2010, 04:18:06 PM
Rick Scott says that he will abolish the Department of Community Affairs if he is elected governor.
That's funny. Did he really say that?
DCA has been a thorn in the side of ardent development and related for years.
It's a calssic civics and governent lesson- the effective,positive role of checks and balances.
Even while in place DCA staffing has faced provocative pressures.Long time staffer Charles Gauthier an excellent poster child.
Promotions for Regional oversight in lieu of DCA are of no assurance.Our own RRegional Planning director Brian Teeple has suggested nobody knows the region better than he,the local.What a crock-all the more reason to shy away from Regional role promotions.And that's what most of the alternative Rick Scott et all boils down to-promotion and spin.
Quote from: north miami on October 22, 2010, 01:42:25 PM
Quote from: British Shoe Company on October 22, 2010, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 21, 2010, 04:18:06 PM
Rick Scott says that he will abolish the Department of Community Affairs if he is elected governor.
That's funny. Did he really say that?
Yes.
Here: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/401026/ron-littlepage/2010-10-11/scotts-solution-worse-even-amendment-4
I see Amendment 4 as a form of "negotiating" to the middle. How? As I think almost everyone agrees, the decades old systems in Florida have failed to adequately manage growth. Despite promises and talk, developers continue to trounce over the landscape. Requests for the legislature to effectively deal with the problem seem to go nowhere.
So, bring on Amendment 4 which may take us to the other extreme. I guarantee you the day after it passes the legislature and developers will come hat-in-hand with solutions never seriously considered before to manage growth while providing some accommodation for reasonable projects. All of a sudden, with Amendment 4, developers will be "pleased as punch" to accept these "new" solutions that heretofore they would never allow to see the light of day. Once resolved, I have no doubt that voters will agree to substitute them for Amendment 4.
Bottom line: Amendment 4 will end up serving as a catalyst to obtain a better result than we have now. I don't see that as bad.
stjr...I see you have more faith in the Legislature than I do
Quote from: stephendare on October 21, 2010, 04:02:45 PM
Quote from: Clem1029 on October 21, 2010, 03:55:37 PM
Not that I've made up my mind on Amendment 4, but surely there's a better line of argument in support than:
Something needs to be done.
Amendment 4 is something.
Therefore, Amendment 4 needs to be done.
Right? I mean, that train of thought is extremely less than persuasive.
This is one of the best posts that has ever appeared on this forum. Thank you, Clem for stating this idea so pithily.
LOL, I used that line today... thanks Clem!
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 23, 2010, 07:34:46 PM
stjr...I see you have more faith in the Legislature than I do
Or he doesn't make his living off it, like you do.
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?
in some cases Stephen, yes
The problem is this....many of the big developments (like Nocatee for example) often do pay their share....on the other hand, smaller pircemeal development often skirts under the radar.
So I ask...which kind of development is going to turn out a significant number of voters....the one that is large and has far-reachong effects or the small single parcel one?
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
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?
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 24, 2010, 09:53:58 AM
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.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 24, 2010, 11:17:47 AM
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.
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).
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 24, 2010, 11:20:43 AM
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)
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 24, 2010, 12:08:03 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 24, 2010, 11:20:43 AM
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.
Quote from: simms3 on October 24, 2010, 11:49:55 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on October 24, 2010, 11:54:39 AM
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.
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.
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)
Quote from: simms3 on October 24, 2010, 01:24:09 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 24, 2010, 02:45:01 PM
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...
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 24, 2010, 03:20:33 PM
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.
So your point is that the horse is already out of the barn, and this solution actually doesn't go far enough?
My point is that this isn't a solution (if the goal is to slow down or stop sprawl). It may actually do the opposite by protecting the horse from having to get back in the barn.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 24, 2010, 03:33:25 PM
My point is that this isn't a solution (if the goal is to slow down or stop sprawl). It may actually do the opposite by protecting the horse from having to get back in the barn.
What would you propose as an adequate solution?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 24, 2010, 12:27:23 PM
This isn't even my argument, comp plans are specifically authorized by statute and that's what they're called. Geez.
yes they are....but comprehensive land use plans or comprehensive future land use plans (take your pick) aren't!
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 24, 2010, 06:05:23 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 24, 2010, 03:33:25 PM
My point is that this isn't a solution (if the goal is to slow down or stop sprawl). It may actually do the opposite by protecting the horse from having to get back in the barn.
What would you propose as an adequate solution?
Thought you never ask ;D.
As I've said in the past, I think the 2030 Mobility Plan and Fee are great logical places to start. Here's more info on them:
QuoteResulting from the definition of a "dense urban land area" or DULA provided within SB 360, the City of Jacksonville has been designated a TCEA. As outlined in Senate Bill 360, within two years after a TCEA becomes effective, local governments are required to amend their local comprehensive plans to include "land use and transportation strategies to support and fund mobility within the exception area, including alternative modes of transportation."
Local comprehensive plans must also comply with 163.3177, F.S., which requires the adoption of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy-efficient land use patterns. Pursuant to SB 360 and 163.3177, F.S., the City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department has prepared a draft 2030 Mobility Plan.
There are two chief components to the mobility planning approach, the draft 2030 Mobility Plan and the supporting 2030 Multimodal Transportation Study (January 2010). The purpose of this dual approach is to build upon existing policies through the adoption of land use and transportation policies that support mobility, in partnership with the effective application of a new transportation improvement and mitigation funding mechanism.
http://www.coj.net/Departments/Planning+and+Development/Community+Planning/Mobility+Plan.htm
Here are a few articles we published earlier this year on the plan:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-apr-jacksonvilles-2030-mobility-plan
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-apr-2030-mobility-plan-a-driver-for-better-development
This will soon be going to council. Take the time to read it and you'll see that this is at least a logical way to address sprawl and better integrating mobility and sustainability with land use.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 24, 2010, 03:09:36 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 24, 2010, 02:45:01 PM
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...
Check this out. Our electorate is so much against sprawl that they've started a website to fight Tampa's plans for light rail and anti-suburban development.
QuoteThe No Tax For Tracks campaign aspires to preserve the American Dream by opposing the anti-suburban polices implied by so called “Smart Growth.†By opposing so called “Smart Growth†the No Tax For Tracks campaign endeavors to preserve the higher quality of life implied by affordable housing, as well promote the higher standard of living made possible when adequate roads reduce congestion and thus improve economic growth.
http://notaxfortracks.com/
Here's another one. Soccer Moms Against Rail Transit (SMART).
QuoteOn election day, the voters of Hillsborough County, Florida (Tampa) will vote on a one-cent sales tax that would fund transit (75%) and roads (25%). Part of the funding would be used to build a new light rail line, which is the focus of campaigns on both sides.
The proponents are the usual well financed coalition of business, rail construction companies and consulting engineers, who could well profit from the program going forward.
The opposition, however, is unusual. It is a direct outgrowth of the growing citizen involvement from the TEA Party and 912 Project. These groups have broken new ground in raising general issues of government waste and public expenditure policy. This could be an important step toward balancing the spending proclivities of special interest groups with taxpayer interests in spending no more than is necessary to provide essential public services.
In Tampa, the rail opposition goes by multiple names, including "No Tax for Tracks" and Smartmoms. The more interesting of the terms is Smartmoms, or "Suburban Moms Against the Rail Tax." They might have just as accurately called themselves "Soccer Moms Against the Rail Tax," reflecting the demographic that has been so important in recent elections.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001806-soccer-moms-against-rail-transit-tampa
Not surprised by those groups at all. Why do you think it has been such a challenge to expand MARTA in the past?
Also, there may be a ton of people opposed to sprawl which serves as the basis for this [lawyer's/environmentalists' dream come true piece of legislation] but most of these people are against all types of new growth. We have an abundance of people that move here, whether it's to the beaches or to St. Johns County, and then they don't want any more developments/people moving in (example: Huntsville lady who killed the beaches). These are the same types who also view money spent on downtown/urban core as money down the drain because they think that Jax is/should be a suburban family paradise and the people who live in the older neighborhoods should conform to their idealistic view.
Also, I haven't viewed all of the overlays and all of the land use plans/zoning regulations, but somehow I doubt that much of central Jacksonville is already zoned for high high density development. And remember when NIMBYs in Mandarin killed that 14 floor building down there? Riverside/Avondale are full of NIMBYs and there are already pretty strict rules/regulations to follow to build or renovate anything in the neighborhood.
I agree with Lake that going forward there are some good plans and good ideas coming forth. Let's just stick with those.
Amendment 4 is nothing but a feel good amendment meant to make certain groups of people's job more profitable and to make people feel good about their vote, like they're really doing something to help out the state and the environment when at best they are doing nothing and at worst they are killing the entire state.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 24, 2010, 06:54:17 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 24, 2010, 12:27:23 PM
This isn't even my argument, comp plans are specifically authorized by statute and that's what they're called. Geez.
yes they are....but comprehensive land use plans or comprehensive future land use plans (take your pick) aren't!
I'm not taking my pick because I never added random words to it, you did. Comprehensive Land Use Plans are specifically authorized by statute, which i already posted earlier. Why are we rehashing this? Would you like me to just keep posting these comprehensive land use plans for you that you claim don't exist?
I would like for you to find me a Florida statute that specifically authorizes "comprehensive land use plans"....and as I have stated before, comprehensive plan and comprehensive land use plan (or comprehensive future land use plan) are not interchangeable.
Amendment 4 does NOT stop growth or development. That is a completely false argument so stop making it.
Amendment 4 simply requires that development take place within the adopted land use plan unless the public, by vote, allows the plan to be amended.
There is plenty of room within the existing land use plan for all the growth we need and more.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 25, 2010, 09:04:19 AM
I would like for you to find me a Florida statute that specifically authorizes "comprehensive land use plans"....and as I have stated before, comprehensive plan and comprehensive land use plan (or comprehensive future land use plan) are not interchangeable.
I already posted it for you a bunch of pages ago. I'm not your secretary, you go find the link if you want it.
And will you quit talking about this mystical "Comprehensive
Future Land Use Plan" already? Nobody said that term, except for you. I challenge you to quote where I said that phrase, or indeed, where anyone other than you in this discussion between the two of us has said that phrase. It must be nice to simply cook up a new phrase and argue with people that it doesn't exist (naturally, since you just made it up), and then act as though that supports your unrelated point in the discussion.
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?
You gotta be kidding me with this?
Again, would you like me to continue posting actual Comprehensive Land Use Plans for you, since you said no such thing exists? I already posted one for you, which is amazing considering there is apparently no such thing, no?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 25, 2010, 10:02:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 25, 2010, 10:01:09 AM
Amendment 4 does NOT stop growth or development. That is a completely false argument so stop making it.
Amendment 4 simply requires that development take place within the adopted land use plan unless the public, by vote, allows the plan to be amended.
There is plenty of room within the existing land use plan for all the growth we need and more.
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 25, 2010, 10:20:14 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 25, 2010, 10:01:09 AM
Amendment 4 does NOT stop growth or development. That is a completely false argument so stop making it.
Amendment 4 simply requires that development take place within the adopted land use plan unless the public, by vote, allows the plan to be amended.
There is plenty of room within the existing land use plan for all the growth we need and more.
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.
Is it every five years or every ten years?
^
QuoteEvery 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
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 25, 2010, 10:32:17 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 25, 2010, 10:20:14 AM
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.
Quote
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
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 25, 2010, 10:32:17 AM
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.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 25, 2010, 10:13:36 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 25, 2010, 10:02:31 AM
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?
QuoteComprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act
You are seriously being asinine. Not that that's really any recent development...
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?
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 25, 2010, 01:09:49 PM
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;
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 16, 2010, 09:50:49 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 16, 2010, 09:34:07 AM
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.
Chris,
Check this out
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1130872.ece
QuoteThat'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.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 29, 2010, 08:27:49 AM
Chris,
Check this out
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1130872.ece
QuoteThat'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...
QuoteTherefore, 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.