County must protect itself

Editorial

Florida's longstanding restrictions on growth were bulldozed into a pile in Tallahassee this spring and, like so many trees cleared for development, set ablaze.

Most Florida residents weren't paying attention to the bonfire of the rules, but two groups closely involved hold extreme and opposite positions. The conservative majority that championed the diminution of the state role in growth predicts a resurgence of construction and prosperity. These mostly new lawmakers are proud to have gotten government out of the way of job creation. They see no downside.

Environmentalists who lobbied hard against the change now warn of a return to anything-goes growth, a time when swamps were drained, streams ruined and the landscape generally prostituted to anyone who could buy influence.

This newspaper is confident the lawmakers are irrationally optimistic and can only hope the other side is overly pessimistic. We have long supported growth rules that protect the environment and fairly allocate costs. We believe in development that improves the region, not helter-skelter sprawl that degrades it and creates costs for taxpayers. And while we strongly doubt that the dismantling of the state Department of Community Affairs will prove to be a pro-business improvement, we don't expect Hillsborough County to be radically changed.

The greatest potential for harm is in the undeveloped sections Florida, much of it in the Panhandle, where developers have grandiose plans, lots of land and no local opposition.

Forty percent of Hillsborough's growth has come after the state's first growth laws were passed in 1985. Many newcomers won't remember overcrowded schools, two-lane country roads without sidewalks serving as Main Street for brand new and isolated communities, and overloaded sewer plants poorly run by private profiteers.

In urban areas like this one, there is little risk that even the most market-oriented local officials will want to return to the old days. Growth plans in Hillsborough County, while far from perfect, have proved worthwhile. And no one is forcing the county to abandon sensible practices.

Under the new rules, developers might get quicker final approvals for projects, which could save their customers money. Those objecting to projects should feel more urgency to speak up early in the process.

Hillsborough is just beginning the long task of updating its comprehensive growth plan, often called the road map for growth. The lack of state oversight raises the stakes and should also attract higher public interest.

Developers can be expected to push to expand or eliminate the urban-service boundary that has helped reduce the cost of providing services to the suburbs. They will argue that they need more low-priced land. The county was been right over the years to stand firm and should continue to hold the line on growth.

The underlying issue remains who, if anyone, pays. The state no longer requires cities and counties to plan for how to cover the public costs as homes and offices are built, a concept called concurrency.

A big part of the political momentum to scrap the pay-as-you-build approach came from the anti-tax, anti-government sentiment in the suburbs. But it is no conservative value to boost the profits of investors at public expense. Simply ignoring the public costs would lower the quality of life and make the region less attractive to new businesses.

The local economy is going to recover, and the unemployment rate will fall. When that happens, housing demand will return. But much has changed. People no longer believe that real estate anywhere is a surefire money-maker.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that for the first time in more than 60 years, the growth rate of Minnesota's suburbs has fallen sharply, with some neighborhoods actually losing population. Here in Hillsborough, "we have enough single-family homes to last 20 years," says Ray Chiaramonte, executive director of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the agency in charge of planning the county's transportation. "Creative developers can do a lot of things," he says. "But the four-bedroom house on a big lot is not going to be a big seller."

Planning the future based on the hope of building big subdivisions with big houses and big lawns, beyond the urban service boundary, would be a big mistake.

The state has given the county freedom to grow however it thinks best. The opportunity demands insightful thinking, not blind ideology.