|
Like a lot of Floridians, I've watched for years as one bit of Florida's post-card paradise was bulldozed after another. It's depressing! I grew up Jacksonville. When I go back there I can no longer remember what parts of it looked like before they were bulldozed into mirror images of other ugly places.
Like a lot of Floridians, I've grappled with the question, "How could this happen?"
For me, the desecration of this beautiful state is a slap in the face of God's creation! I’m worried what Florida will be like when my two sons are grown.
My unhappiness was compounded by the fact that I know that it didn't have to be this way. You see, I have a law degree from the University of Florida and I know that there are lots of laws on the books that could protect our beautiful state - if the power-brokers wanted it that way.
Over the years I've come to realize that laws don't mean anything if they aren't enforced. Too often, the laws that are supposed to protect our communities and our future sit on the shelf and collect dust.
|
|
|
Or, if, perchance, enforcement is demanded and it looks like it might actually happen, the rules get changed to accommodate the sprawl anyway! The hard truth is that Florida's power structure, both in Tallahassee and at the local level, has no intention of protecting our quality of life or Florida's beauty uniqueness. There is just too much money being made today by the power brokers for the future to matter.
My Conclusion
Several years ago I came to the conclusion that local and state governments that embrace a philosophy of growth for the sake of growth--at the expense of the average Floridian who has lived in this state for more than a couple of years--are harmful to our well being. How else do you explain that the building continues even though our schools can't take it, our roads can't take it, our water supply can't take it, our beautiful places can't take it and the locals don't want it?
Because I'm a lawyer, people trying to save their little piece of paradise call me, desperate for help. They are frightened and confused -- and they should be. It's an exhausting, difficult, complicated, uphill battle to try to fight "city hall." The "rules" ostensibly controlling development are convoluted and too often citizens upset by a particular proposed project aren't able to begin to mount an opposition until after the "fix is in" and the "deal is done." If you're really motivated and angry-just try to find a lawyer to take your case! (I personally can think of no more than 5 or 6 practicing "environmental lawyers" who regularly represent the average Floridian against the "big boys." Most "land use" attorneys charge a couple of hundred dollars an hour and work for the development industry.) Going to court is difficult-emotionally and physically draining as well as And then, more often than not, you have to slug your way through years of litigation that can be very mean spirited. I doubt one heartbroken Floridian in a hundred has the temperament to slog through litigation, and doubt one in a thousand has the wallet or luck or both to find an attorney willing and able to take his or her case. They don't call litigation "the playground of princes" for nothing...
I've spent the past few years studying land use law. I've come to understand that land use regulations that restrict certain uses of land (like zoning and comprehensive land use plans) have been upheld by the courts for many years as long as they have a reasonable relationship to public health, safety and welfare. We all have a strong interest in having a clean, environmentally healthy community. When a city or county commission votes to approve a proposed land use change, the underlying legal presumption is that the proposed change benefits the public interest. You wouldn't know that when you attend a city or county commission public hearing on a proposed land use change and hear homeowners begging their elected officials not to approve a particular proposed change because of the harm it will wreak on roads, traffic, municipal services, the tax base, the environment etc. I've come to the sad conclusion that too many of our elected officials define "public interest" as keeping the development industry happy. Whatever happened to the "public" in the process?
Our Solution...
How many times have you heard a city or county commission say: "If we don't approve this proposed land use change the developer will sue us for taking his property!"? Well, it sounds scary, but 99.9% of the time it just is not true. Our courts have repeatedly ruled that no taking occurs when a landowner proposes to make a new use of his property that is determined by the city or county commission to be inconsistent with the public welfare. The fact remains that the owner can still use his land in accordance with the current land use classification. An example: a comprehensive plan future land use map designates a density of 1 house per acre for a parcel of land. The land owner wants to put 2 houses per acre and seeks a comprehensive plan amendment. The city commission hears the proposed change and votes no. Does the owner have a "taking" claim? No. The owner may still make reasonable use of his property by building one house per acre. Another example: a comprehensive future land use map designates a parcel of land shall remain agricultural. The land owner seeks to amend the comprehensive plan to redesignate the land as commercial. The county commission votes no. Does the land owner have a taking claim? No. As long as he can still put his land to reasonable use (perhaps he's been grazing cattle there), and can build one house per 5 acres (which is the typical agricultural housing density), there's no takings claim. A takings claim can typically only succeed when a property owner is deprived of all economically beneficial use of his property.
Comprehensive plans are supposed to be the centerpiece of ensuring sensible growth. They are supposed to make sure that growth doesn't overwhelm and ruin Florida's communities and our quality of life. But the plans can't protect us when they are subject to willy-nilly changes. And that is what has happened in Florida.
I realize now that the best way to protect a community is to give the power over land use changes to the people who live there. People care about the place where they live. It is natural-for most of us, our home is our biggest investment-both emotionally and financially. We move to a place because we like it. Our kids go to school there. We should have the final say over proposed changes to our community, because, for better or worse, we will be stuck with them for a very, very long time.
My confidence in the people's ability to best protect their communities is strongly reinforced by the opinions by the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court upholding the legality of referenda on proposed land use decisions. Their decisions explain that the power to approve or reject proposed land use changes has always been the people's power and they can take it back from local politicians if they want to. It means a lot that both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have ruled that it is perfectly legal and appropriate for the voters to have the final vote on proposed land use changes within their communities. Amendment 4 simply takes the confidence that the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have in the people and enshrines that confidence in the comprehensive planning process.
Amendment 4 expands democracy, giving the people the final vote on hometown change. Simple, but crucial to the future of Florida. If you are sick and tired of the corrupt, broken status quo of “government of the developer, by the developer and for the developer,” please get involved in this historic campaign. If you are a Florida registered voter, please vote yes on 4 in November 2010. Tell your family, friends, neighbors and co-workers about Amendment 4.
I thank you. And Florida's Future thanks you.
|
