TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

A Super Way To Get A Better Grip On How Counties And Cities Grow

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 12, 2007

A county's comprehensive land-use plan should be more reliable than an erasable chalkboard. Yet because politicians are so quick to help developers by passing growth-plan amendments, citizens are stepping up to change the rules of the game.

By overwhelming margins, voters in the city of Sarasota and Sarasota County last week approved a requirement that four of five commissioners on each board approve any land-use change that allows higher population densities.

Requiring supermajority approval rather than a simple majority is an ideal way to discourage willy-nilly land-use changes requested by landowners and developers. It's much more sensible than putting all land-use amendments to a public vote, as proposed by the Florida Hometown Democracy constitutional amendment.

The problem is that people can no longer count on their county's comp plan to guide growth.

In 2005, local governments in Florida adopted more than 8,000 plan amendments, according to Tom Pelham, secretary of the state Department of Community Affairs, which reviews the plans.

"The frequency of amendments has undermined the credibility of local plans and turned them into six-month suggestions rather than long-term visions," he told the American Planning Association in September.

Requiring supermajority votes for future land-use changes could help channel market forces that sometimes get out of balance. Where growth is better managed, local resources are less likely to be overwhelmed.

Hernando County commissioners adopted the supermajority rule a year ago, but only after a contentious debate over a proposed 1,750-home development in a rural area along the Pasco-Hernando line, a project that was approved.

Pasco County, which has allowed unchecked growth for years, still requires only a simple majority. From 2002 through last year, Pasco approved 87 plan amendments, far too many if a long-range plan is to mean anything.

Pasco's quick trigger underscores another problem. State law requires that local governments evaluate and update their land-use plans every seven years. The review forces local governments to accommodate new trends, changing markets and other unanticipated issues. But the work seems pointless if the long-range plan can be immediately undone.

For example, Pasco spent more than three years and $2 million revising its land-use plan. One much-needed change created a rural protection area. The process was completed in the summer of 2006.

Yet, about six months ago, three commissioners had the audacity to give preliminary approval to an amendment that would have allowed 300 homes on half-acre lots in the protected rural area.

Fortunately, the developer withdrew the proposal and submitted a more reasonable one.

The Legislature itself has undermined the reliability of comp plans by adding 32 exemptions to state restrictions on plan updates. As a result, plans that appear to manage growth are easily loosened to give growth free rein.

Pelham endorses requiring supermajority votes to adopt certain types of plan amendments. That is consistent with the 60 percent voter approval now required to amend the state constitution.

Indeed, land-use plans are local constitutions based on widely agreed-upon development and conservation principles that should not be changed by a simple majority. A higher threshold is justified.

A supermajority vote, however, is no guarantee of tighter growth management. For instance, Hillsborough, which has required such a supermajority vote for years, has adopted 129 changes in the last five years.

Still, the supermajority is a sound, democratic way to respond to citizen demands to better manage growth and protect natural resources.

Voters are paying close attention, and unless they see improvements, are ready to take matters into their own hands.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT