Anti Sprawl Group Lobbies Governor Crist

[stephendare]

http://wire.jacksonville.com/pstories/state/fl/20090514/439834124.shtml

Fla. anti-sprawl group wants bill veto
The Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. â€" A group that advocates for responsible development is urging Gov. Charlie Crist to veto a bill it says would promote urban sprawl, cause traffic congestion and contribute to climate change.

The president of 1000 Friends of Florida, Charles Pattison, outlined the group's opposition to the bill (SB 360) in a letter to Crist dated Wednesday.

The legislation is supported by builders and developers who say it'll help their recession-wracked industry recover and create jobs.

One provision would exempt many outlying as well as urban areas from a requirement to have adequate roads and other transportation for development to occur.

Others would extend time limits on development permits and exempt many large projects from state oversight.

[stjr]

http://wire.jacksonville.com/pstories/state/fl/20090514/439834124.shtml
One provision would exempt many outlying as well as urban areas from a requirement to have adequate roads and other transportation for development to occur.

Others would extend time limits on development permits and exempt many large projects from state oversight.

And, who will end up paying the deficiencies in "adequate roads and other transportation for development", not to mention utilities, schools, fire and police expansions, and other infrastructure?  We the taxpayers. 

Why would anti-tax Republicans want to further pressure government to raise taxes with legislation such as this?

By the way, the developers problems stem from a LACK of DEMAND for new homes, not the cost of them or their availability.  "It's the economy stupid!"

[tufsu1]

Not that I like most of the bill, but the theory is that requirements for "adequate transportation" would be removed...for both developers and local governments.

The reason being that this has always meant roadway LOS....and maybe removing the requirement will incentivize more density and transit-friendly urban form.

[Charles Hunter]

How are those rose-colored glasses fitting, tufsu?  You know that removing the requirement to pay for infrastructure needs will "incentivize" them to develop in a more transit-friendly format?  By declaring ALL of Duval county "densely populated" it removes all incentives for in-fill.  If the line had been drawn around the truly densely populated area, then I could agree with you.  Possible development line? The Edgewood/University "loop"?  I-295?

[lindab]

The most interesting aspect to the bill  is a new definition for dense urban land areas. It now reads that a municipality or county with an average of 1,000 people per square mile of land area or a county which has a population of at least 1 million would be considered  dense and urban.

So for example many counties in Florida, the whole county, would be considered dense and urban. Any place with one home per 1.5 acres would be considered dense and urban.  I think that Duval and St. Johns Co could qualiry as dense and urban.

This would then qualify the county or area to exempt itself from any transportation concurrency requirements. 
It would also remove the regional planning requrements for developments now called DRIs.  That should not go a long way toward stimulating growth in transit. Certainly it will stimulate more development.

[tufsu1]

How are those rose-colored glasses fitting, tufsu?  You know that removing the requirement to pay for infrastructure needs will "incentivize" them to develop in a more transit-friendly format?

I clearly stated that I don't like most parts of the bill...but it is important to understand that our mexisting transportation concurrency system is a joke...unfortuinately, the Legislature tends to use a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel in dealing with issues.

btw..."dense urban area" is defined by jurisdictional boundaries...Duval County would qualify...St. Johns would not...although the City of St. Augustine would.

Like I said in another thread, if you don't like the decisions made by elected officials, vote them out of office!

[Charles Hunter]

I keep trying to vote them out, tufsu, but the Developer Funded Candidates keep winning!

[tufsu1]

um Stephen...planners don't make the decisions...we generally provide "unbiased" information to elected officials, who are the decision makers!

[stjr]

um Stephen...planners don't make the decisions...we generally provide "unbiased" information to elected officials, who are the decision makers!

Tufsu, it's apparent over your many posts that you are somehow connected to the development industry and I guess here you are outing yourself as a planner.  While I do give you credit for having more "mixed" feelings about the product of your trade than most, I think it is undeniable that most engineers, planners, architects, consultants, etc. tailor their reports, suggestions, plans, etc. to the exclusive whims of their paying clients.    This ability is further enabled by the wide-spread lack of creativity, visioning, big picture thinking, think-outside-the-box, and/or willingness to challenge conventional thinking or what the "code book" or other existing protocols may infer.  I have battled many a professional in my employ to think without blinders on and for most, I found it not to be easy.  Add the fear of controversy and public scrutiny and you will find most of these professionals hiding behind curtains and under rocks.

You are just verifying it once again by putting the total onus on "elected officials".  Such "elected officials" couldn't get away with half of what they do if they didn't have these marshmallow (or, in some cases, prostituting)  professionals giving them documents supporting the already foregone conclusions being pushed for.  Look no further than the Courthouse or Outer Beltway projects to see where all the professionals are leading us. 

[tufsu1]

Fine...I will out myself as a planner....and one that specializes in transportation too...not that its a big secret.

On top of that, I'm an AICP certified planner who must follow clear ethical guidelines....first is Responisbility to the Public...second is Responsibility to our Clients and Employers....here's a link in case you want to read the whole Code of Ethics.

http://www.planning.org/ethics/

Now, I take my job and my ethical obligations very seriously....and since I deal with transportation concurrency issues often in my everyday job, I may be more keenly aware of the positive and negative effects that our regulations have created....for example, our current system has encouraged sprawl and roadway widenings while discouraging urban development and transit.

That said, what the Legislature has passed is potentially much worse than the system we have today, and I am opposed to the bill...sometimes they need to just leave things alone...but of course they don't think they were elected to do nothing, and they're probably right.

As for projects like the Courthouse and the Outer Beltway, there are always competing interests and multiple viewpoints...for example, while the Outer Beltway would probably be harmful to urban Jacksonville, wouldn't it be positive in terms of economic development for Clay County?

[tufsu1]

thats not what a planner explained at a recent meeting with metrojacksonville.  In fact they explained that they had to 'take into account political reality'.

He didnt seem like a dishonest person, I have no reason to disbelieve him.

Perhaps the planner was expressing his peronal opinion...when presenting information to decision makers, that doesn't come into play unless we are asked.

[stjr]

Fine...I will out myself as a planner....and one that specializes in transportation too...not that its a big secret.

On top of that, I'm an AICP certified planner who must follow clear ethical guidelines....first is Responisbility to the Public...second is Responsibility to our Clients and Employers....here's a link in case you want to read the whole Code of Ethics.

http://www.planning.org/ethics/

Tufsu, thanks for the candor and link.  No doubt, you have a difficult job balancing the public interests with the likely often countervailing interests of politicians and their special interests friends and I give you credit for being more thoughtful of this than perhaps many of your other professional colleagues.  I found the AICP ethics rules enlightening:

American Institute of Certified Planners:

A: Principles to Which We Aspire

1. Our Overall Responsibility to the Public

Our primary obligation is to serve the public interest and we, therefore, owe our allegiance to a conscientiously attained concept of the public interest that is formulated through continuous and open debate. We shall achieve high standards of professional integrity, proficiency, and knowledge. To comply with our obligation to the public, we aspire to the following principles:

    a) We shall always be conscious of the rights of others.

    b) We shall have special concern for the long-range consequences of present actions.

    c) We shall pay special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions.

    d) We shall provide timely, adequate, clear, and accurate information on planning issues to all affected persons and to governmental decision makers.

    e) We shall give people the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development of plans and programs that may affect them. Participation should be broad enough to include those who lack formal organization or influence.

    f) We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration. We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs.

    g) We shall promote excellence of design and endeavor to conserve and preserve the integrity and heritage of the natural and built environment.

    h) We shall deal fairly with all participants in the planning process. Those of us who are public officials or employees shall also deal evenhandedly with all planning process participants.

2. Our Responsibility to Our Clients and Employers

We owe diligent, creative, and competent performance of the work we do in pursuit of our client or employer's interest. Such performance, however, shall always be consistent with our faithful service to the public interest.

    a) We shall exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of our clients and employers.

    b) We shall accept the decisions of our client or employer concerning the objectives and nature of the professional services we perform unless the course of action is illegal or plainly inconsistent with our primary obligation to the public interest.

    c) We shall avoid a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in accepting assignments from clients or employers.

It would appear to me the problem begins with (2)(c), a conflict of interest.  This is created by the fact that the agency/decision maker doing the hiring of the planner or other professional has an agenda that may conflict with the "public interest".  As the professional's bill payer, I see the beginning of a problem here.

As to the rest of the public interests provisions, I don't see anything close to consistent adherence, from my vantage point, to most of these principals, particularly the ones I have highlighted in bold.

As a member of your profession, Tufsu, I would understand that you may disagree with me.  But from the outside looking in, I would suggest public perception is far closer to mine than yours.  Again, I believe the proof is in the pudding.  If planners and other professionals adhered fully to these ethics, I would think our society would be devoid of many of the problems it experiences today.

This last quote below says it all, that all the above portions of the ethics code are "aspirational" only, and that any violation of same has no enforcement consequences.  What message does that send the professional about the seriousness of adherence?

Section A contains a statement of aspirational principles that constitute the ideals to which we are committed. We shall strive to act in accordance with our stated principles. However, an allegation that we failed to achieve our aspirational principles cannot be the subject of a misconduct charge or be a cause for disciplinary action.

[tufsu1]

I will fully agree that many professionals in planning and related fields often do not follow this code...and as you've noticed, in some cases, portions of the code can be construed as contradictory.

[Deuce]

One provision would exempt many outlying as well as urban areas from a requirement to have adequate roads and other transportation for development to occur.

WTF?

That seems so anti-commonsense to me I don't know how any rational educated person can support it.

[Charles Hunter]

In the Developer-Owned-Legislative mind, it makes perfects sense- Let Development Occur Anywhere, at Any Time, with No Restrictions!