Amendment 4

[stjr]

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.

[buckethead]

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

[CS Foltz]

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!

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[thelakelander]

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.

[tufsu1]

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.

[simms3]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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 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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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 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

[thelakelander]

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.

[thelakelander]

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.

[simms3]

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.