Amendment 4

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[thelakelander]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[tufsu1]

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!

[thelakelander]

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 .

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:

Resulting 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.

[thelakelander]

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.

The 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/

[thelakelander]

Here's another one.  Soccer Moms Against Rail Transit (SMART).

On 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

[simms3]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[tufsu1]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[ChriswUfGator]

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?

[tufsu1]

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.

[thelakelander]

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.  

[Dog Walker]

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?