Amendment 4

[simms3]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[simms3]

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.

[tufsu1]

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).

[Dog Walker]

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?

[British Shoe Company]

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?

[fieldafm]

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!

[north miami]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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

[stjr]

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.

[tufsu1]

stjr...I see you have more faith in the Legislature than I do

[fieldafm]

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!

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[tufsu1]

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?

[tufsu1]

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?