I would like to hear comments on the effects of the dismantling of Florida's State planning agency, as well as the potential effects of the revisions to the Bert Harris Act.
I am not a planner and would like to hear professional opinions. Also I would like to hear commentary on the effects of Agenda 21
I was at a recent presentation by Sect'y Buzzett. He mentioned three of the largest changes to growth management in Florida:
- Less oversight from Tallahassee regarding comp plan amendments
- Streamlined evaluation and appraisal report process
- Elimination of the "pilot" Sector Plan....it's not a pilot program anymore. Unlimited number of Sector Plans.
Check this thread.
http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showt...367#post594367
Here's another good piece of information:
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/...esentation.pdf
The Bert Harris Act is nothing and never has been.
A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place — like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.
Agenda 21 has already planted a chip in my skull and my entire staff has been taken over by European Bureaucrats poised to BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT...Originally posted by Inventor
One more thought: growth management has not been eliminated in Florida; it's just taken a different perspective. That is important to keep in mind. Cities and counties are still required to prepare and implement comprehensive planning but with limited review from Tallahassee.
A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place — like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.
DCA's certainly made a lot of mistakes in the past and has been intransigent in many respects, but this move is nuts IMO.. presumably the result of developer lobbying. Does it effectively make the urban development boundaries dead letters? Also, what does this mean for concurrency?
Dismantling DCA won't do a damn thing to bring back development in FL. Even if things were to turn around tomorrow it'd still take the state 20 years or more to build out the DRIs that were already approved. DCA is a convenient scapegoat for the current administration, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking it was actually any sort of barrier to development in FL. All those bank-owned, abandoned subdivisions are living proof of its insignificance.
I gather you're refering to the state's current tea partyer in chief, Rick Scott. he of the 29% approval rating...
Yeah that clown. He of the "poor but proud" philosophy of governing (or "we don't need no federal government handouts").
I agree with this. The changes will allow a clever local government to do some really innovative planning, without running afoul of the (often) bureaucratic hurdles of DCA. It will also allow local governments that want to strip out big chunks of their comp plans to do that, as well.
(When I finally realized that DCA was primarily a regulatory agency, concerned with making sure the rules got followed, and not an agency that worked very hard to get good planning done, the Florida system made a lot more sense to me.)
This is an unpopular opinion in Florida, but this is also my impression of DCA. Another viewpoint is DCA stymied smaller developers since only the bigger boys could afford to play. The intentions at responsible planning were noble but the execution failed miserably IMHO.
I'd agree with this. I've had nothing but misery dealing with DCA. The way they worked basically advantaged local (and highly paid) land-use attorneys who knew how to navigate the DRI (Development of Regional Impact) process best, not because they were the best planners, but because they knew how go keep the wheels spinning if you will. They made Florida the only palce where you'd hire Greenberg Traurig (at $1,000 an hour) in lieu of hiring an urban designer/planner, to do your new subdivision for you.
But the problem is that this change dispenses with a huge part of planning process and leaves a big gaping hole there. It's true, within the urban development boundaries, comp plans are still in force. But Florida has had a pattern of development where huge developers regularly go beyond comp plan boundaries to do massive greenfield DRIs.. sometimes thousands and even tens of thousands of units at a time, often many miles away from contiguous development. The DRI process regulated this process through two means: concurrency and environmental/farmland protection. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), nothing will replace that, and, as it is, the means for controlling or at least limiting the ambitions of the Harmonies and Ave Marias.
This may all be a moot point.. with entire cities full of housing now lying largely abandoned, who cares about greenfield DRIs? But when the market comes back, I can see this as a big problem if the means for tracking and enforcing concurrency has gone away.
Here's a brief discussion from DCA regarding concurrency.
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/...oncurrency.cfm
Ironically, cities and counties still need to maintain adopted levels of service for transportation, schools and recreational facilities. We'll see how this all shakes out.
A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place — like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.
Here'e one of the first salvos fired at my home county of Orange in FL:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,7203310.story
These dirtbags are swarming out of the woodwork.
I think that communities which are savvy, planning-oriented and clever will be just fine. Communities that aren't will be raped by the development community as a whole.
I cannot recall a property developer saying, "You know, my primary goal is to be a good neighbor and fit into the community." It's almost always along the lines of, "Gee, I've got a 5 pound bag and 10 pounds of crap. I need to make this all fit otherwise I'm going to..."
Pick one or more to finish the sentence - there are no wrong answers:
A. Be unhappy and sue you
B. Lose money and sue you
C. Not make as much money as I thought I was and sue you
D. Walk away and someone else will sue you
E. Go completely broke and sue you
F. Cry at the zoning counter and then sue you
G. Get you fired and then sue you
H. Blame you, personally, for the oncoming disintegration of Western civilization as we know it and then sue you
I. Something, something, something and sue you
I think that once the the economy starts to recover (someday...maybe) we're going to start seeing a regular parade of elected and other community officials getting busted for accepting bribes in lieu of reducing or eliminating concurrency requirements, sliding developments, Comp. Plan amendments, etc. through.
The immediate effect will be nothing as that's what's happening in Florida, generally speaking.
With regard to the Bert Harris Act - I haven't given it much thought. I don't have a strong opinion on it.
With regard to Agenda 21. It has about as much impact on life and planning in Florida as does Area 51 does on my property value here in my fair city, Clearwater, FLA. (ummm, that's none, by the way. I've read up on Agenda 21 - pros and cons and have come to the conclusion that it's much ado about nothing.)
At times like this, you have to ask yourself, "WWJDD?"
(What Would Jimmy Durante Do?)
therein lies the problem.
I agree. It's only a statement by the UN recognizing environmental degradation as a problem (note that I said environmental degradation, not urban development). From that standpoint, it's no different than the warning labels on cigarettes or alcohol. I read the Agenda on the UN website. They use the word "environment" forty times, but only use the word "economic" four times. By doing this, they're continuing with the narrow mindset of environmental stewardship as opposed to economic reality.
Another narrow mindset might be the failure to recognize the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.
Jus' sayin'.
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2011/jul/...forced-out-at/
Yep, the crooks are in charge down there in FL. It's a shame because Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist were good men.
A valid point I would tend to agree with OP. The cost of money and time it took to play favored the the larger corps. with their armies of consultants/staff - who effectively had their way with local gov'ts. The question is did this result in "better" planned communities? Which, of course, is up for debate.
"Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill
Well yeah, what I was saying was that by only promoting the environmental benefits, you are reducing your support base because you are leaving out the economic and social factors.
Sadly neither partty sees the interconnectedness of them. It's part of the polarization/politicalization of this country. Foul the environment too much, and the poor/middle class start having health issues-see Northwest Indiana. Preserve the environment too much and we all live in poverty.
When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?
Received this in an email today:
---
Craig,
I was somewhat disappointed in reading your article in the July 2011 issue of Planning, titled “Florida Kills Growth Management Act.” I understand that the article appeared in the “News Briefs” section of the magazine which does not provide sufficient column space to fully explain a complex topic as House Bill (HB) 7207 and the recent changes to Florida’s Growth Management Act. Your article certainly offers a very disheartening viewpoint regarding the recent legislative changes in Florida. Especially, to any reader who has not followed the legislative process, much less read HB 7207. I say this because it is my belief, which I believe is shared by many of my planning colleagues, that Florida did not kill the Growth Management Act. I understand the argument that changes to the role of DCA as a strong, centralized state planning agency in the oversight and approval process of Comprehensive Plans weakens the overall planning effort in Florida. However, I also recognize that there is a lot of good planning that is taking place at the local level and does not need a “top down” planning structure or state oversight to be successful. In a sense, I believe it boils down to some people seeing the glass as half empty while others see it as half full.
Most of the planning requirements of the Growth Management Act remain unchanged and, while Rule 9J-5 was repelled, several of the provisions of the rule have been incorporated into the Growth Management Act (Chapter 163, F.S.) In fact, if you step back and take a look at the new law in its totality, there remains a decent planning process, that if followed, will provide local governments the necessary tools to guide their futures. Your article states that the new legislation bans cities and counties from imposing impact fees on non-residential development for two years. This is simply not the case. This provision was discussed earlier in the legislative process, but not included in the final, adopted version of the legislation.
Certainly, the statutory changes did not diminish the importance of local governments ability to make sound decisions that are based on plans developed over decades of hard work, public investment and public participation. The big question, in light of the changes, is how will local governments respond to those changes? Will they remove concurrency for transportation, schools and park facilities? Will they remove their School Facilities Element from their Comprehensive Plan? Will they make bad planning decisions that result in sprawl and adverse environmental impacts? Will citizen involvement in the planning process and public opinion have any influence or bearing on local decisions and choices? I guess these questions remain to be answered as we move into future with the changes in HB 7207. It can be argued that planning requirements contained in state law and rule are not essential to achieve good planning. In fact, changes in these requirements can present new opportunities for local governments to be proactive and creative in making planning decisions and securing a better future for existing and future populations. As a planning profession, I believe it is critical that planners in the state provide leadership in identifying those creative and innovative solutions.
One of the more frustrating aspects of the legislative debate, was that it appeared to focus heavily on comprehensive plans as a regulatory impediment to economic development. Seemingly lost in the debate is the strong linkage between good planning and economic development, including job creation. A comprehensive plan is not an end unto itself but it is a tool to guide a community towards economically vibrant, sustainable and active communities. It is my opinion that most local communities throughout Florida “get this” and will “stay the course” by maintaining concurrency, including a school facilities element, as part of their plans. Additionally, they will “step up” and make good planning decisions without having DCA as a “backstop” for bad planning decisions. Craig, I hope that you take the time and opportunity to speak with other planners in leadership roles around the state to get different perspectives from professionals who work with the growth management act and the recent changes on a daily basis. I realize that planners don’t make the decisions, elected official do and when local politics are involved, anything can happen. I acknowledge that some bad choices and decisions will occur. However, many of the elected officials that I know sincerely want to do the right thing and understand the significance of sound planning and a following a good plan for the future of their community.
In closing, I encourage you to point out that there is still a planning requirement in place in Florida and local governments are now more accountable to existing and future populations to make good decisions based on their plans developed over the years. I believe that local citizens also have a very important role in the new planning structure for Florida. They should be encouraged to become educated and more aware of their community’s planning efforts and to get involved – participate in local planning and visioning efforts to provide guidance to appointed planning and zoning boards and local elected officials. Planning is definitely alive and well in the state. Governments have taken on different roles and local governments are capable of implementing the plans and vision of their local community.
Thanks,
Merle
Merle H. Bishop, FAICP
APA Florida President
OP- is there a link you could PM me to your article? Not an APA member (in fact I'm probably blacklisted)...
Last edited by hilldweller; 14 Jul 2011 at 10:30 PM. Reason: grmr
Couldn't tell.
And I do love the spin in the letter.
Sorry, no link. I only have the email.
Quote
