Amendment 4

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[tufsu1]

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

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[tufsu1]

please show me where in 163.3177 the words "Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan" are used....here's the beginning...

163.3177

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

(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

(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. 

[ChriswUfGator]

please show me where in 163.3177 the words "Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan" are used....here's the beginning...

163.3177

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

(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

(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)

[ChriswUfGator]

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,

[simms3]

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!

[simms3]

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.

[tufsu1]

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?

[tufsu1]

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!

[Overstreet]

It's just like that ammendment a few years ago about class size. It sounds good but no body can afford it.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[tufsu1]

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!