What are your guys opinions on this amendment?

To me, it's a basket of horse shit.

I haven't heard about it? The name itself sounds stupid but what is it?

I haven't heard about it? The name itself sounds stupid but what is it?
It's going to be Amendment 4 on the ballot this year. Basically, once a city council or commission approves a change to land zoning for a development, it must go by the residents in voting. It's like placing a referendum on the whole city and not just certain chunks of land. So say a developer wants to build on a piece of land that currently is zoned as industrial but wants to change it to build a residential project, if they propose such a change in January and the council approves it in the same month, the developer is going to have wait until 11 months for the public to either approve or deny it.

Why would a developer waste their time and money to possibly get denied their request? Why can't these "concerned" folks go to council/commssioner meetings instead of having a election to voice their opposition? Where else do you see such idiocy existing in the nation?

Wow... That is really the dumbest idea I've heard in a while. Putting some of the idiots who live here in charge of what gets developed and at the same time with the small town mentality around here!! Is this state trying to keep the real estate market in the hole?? I love this quote from the official site "More often than not, growth management doesn’t work in Florida".. Really"?!?! What growth management is this? Last time I checked every major Florida city is sprawled out of control and lacks proper infrastructure to handle the growth!! All this will do is stop growth which won't solve the problems we have if not make them worse. I'm really starting to lose all hope for this state, basket of horse shit is putting it lightly!

Since virtually all of the developers sit on the land and sell it later, does this really matter? I'd much rather see something requiring them to actually build within x days of zoning approval.

Well basically, it would be more directed towards counties like Pasco where land that is currently all zoned as agricultural could possibly be a subdivision. Which I've voiced my opinion in emails to Michael Cox (my commissioner) but unfortunately have class a hour after the BOCC meetings starts here. And special elections can be set up, but just look at the turnout to the special elections we have already. The only people that will show up will likely be the people that pushed for this amendment. Makes me wish I could run for county commissioner now.

I wouldn't even worry about it. It has little chance of passing imo.

I wouldn't even worry about it. It has little chance of passing imo.
I hope so. I looked at their endorsements and most of them come from environmental groups, anti-development groups, and former politicians. There is only one candidate in this state that has endorsed them and no current seated politician have backed the amendment. I know I'll be voting no in November.

Dear Tampa Mike. You shouldn't start posts about a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

"It's going to be Amendment 4 on the ballot this year. Basically, once a city council or commission approves a change to land zoning for a development, it must go by the residents in voting."

This statement is wrong. Either you don't know the difference between zoning or land use or you think the two are interchangeable. They are not. Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 pertains to changes to future land use on local comprehensive plans. Comprehensive plans are supposed to be our planning tool for guiding future growth.
Only changes to future land use first approved by local officials would be subject to a vote by the people who live in the community and will be most impacted by the change. In essence, people will have the ability to veto what they consider bad decisions on the part of their representatives.


"Why would a developer waste their time and money to possibly get denied their request? Why can't these "concerned" folks go to council/commssioner meetings instead of having a election to voice their opposition? Where else do you see such idiocy existing in the nation? "

I don't know what planet you are from but people do go to their commission and council meetings and try to influence their elected officials in the three minutes they are allotted in front of a microphone Why should citizens "waste their time" taking time off from work when controversial issues can be removed from the agenda at the last minute by the applicants when they get wind that people are not happy with their plan.
Either you believe that going before a commission should be a formality and every request for a land use change should be automatically granted or you believe that people who live in a community shouldn't have any say in how that community grows.

"Well basically, it would be more directed towards counties like Pasco where land that is currently all zoned as agricultural could possibly be a subdivision. Which I've voiced my opinion in emails to Michael Cox (my commissioner) but unfortunately have class a hour after the BOCC meetings starts here. And special elections can be set up, but just look at the turnout to the special elections we have already. The only people that will show up will likely be the people that pushed for this amendment. Makes me wish I could run for county commissioner now.
I hope so. I looked at their endorsements and most of them come from environmental groups, anti-development groups, and former politicians. There is only one candidate in this state that has endorsed them and no current seated politician have backed the amendment. I know I'll be voting no in November."

Once again, you are confusing zoning and land use. And, if you are from Pasco, let's talk about Connerton.

"Connerton sits between U.S. 41 and Ehren Cutoff in the heart of Pasco County. It covers nearly 7,800 acres of the former Conner Ranch, from which the development takes its name.
As originally planned, Connerton was supposed to have more than 9,000 homes, 1.7 million square feet or retail and 1.4 million square feet of office and government space. The project is also slated for more than 800,000 acres of industrial space and a 36-hole golf course. Most of those plans remain unfulfilled." Because the place is bankrupt.
Only 266 of the 9,000 homes have been built.
I live in Pasco County too and according to the Urban Land Institute there are already 572,000 units that Pasco County has entitled

The prediction that if Amendment 4 passes, the construction industry and our
economy will come to a grinding halt does not take into account the
already approved residential densities, industrial and economic centers and
commercial land allocations already existing on comprehensive plans
throughout the state. Right now, our city and county land use plans have, on the books, designations that allow development for over 100 million people. Florida’s current population is about 18 million; tens of thousands of empty homes have yet to be sold.

"I looked at their endorsements and most of them come from environmental groups, anti-development groups, and former politicians. There is only one candidate in this state that has endorsed them and no current seated politician have backed the amendment. I know I'll be voting no in November."

And on the opposite side we have elected officils who get most of their campaign contributions from developers and big corporations that don't want to follow environmental regulations.

The people who are fighting Amendment 4 are the real special interests, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Home Builders Association.

__________________
I am voting yes for Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 in November.
http://www.floridahometowndemocracy.com/

^This is hardly the time to be pulling the emergency brake on the Florida economy.

Most voters are going to see the proposed Amendment 4 for the gross overreaction that it is to a problem that can be more effectively solved through other less complicated maneuvers. When you don't like the haircut you've been getting, you don't shave your head, you simply get a new barber. Amendment 4 has little chance of getting 60% of the vote, because there's too many people who will rightly look at an added layer of bureaucracy, and understand that it will make our taxes go up and our economy slow down.

If you like the way development battles have played out on St. Pete Beach, now the whole state gets to benefit from the same asinine no growth mentality. I'll bet it passes by a wide margin and it'll kill what is left of the Florida economy. First the state decided it wanted the worst form of tax structure known to man, the sales tax on products only (guaranteeing that during economic downturns revenues decline while demand for services increase). Then the choice was made to underfund education. Then the choice was made to chase after low-tech back office work, until someone woke up circa 1995 and figured out it was now time to play catch up. As a consequence of the previous choices, the main economic development option was to build-build-build regardless of aggregate demand. Now lets throw in something like hometown democracy that makes a certainty legal hassles for years and basically locks in piss poor planning choices from the 1960s-70s.

Hometown democracy could best be titled:

The FU to Florida's Future Amendment, or

The How to Guarantee that Florida's Best and Brightest Youth Will Forever Seek Better Lives Elsewhere Amendment, or

The Slow Death to Opportunity in Florida Amendment, or

The States of California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico Thank Florida for the Shortsighted Views Amendment.

This mentality, the now changes, things are fine, why bother, it was fine for me when I was a kid, is precisely why I left for a bigger market. It is precisely why I am now in demand from global brands that are ubiquitous in our lives. It is precisely why I took a 25% pay raise when I left and another 30% the following year and am looking at a bigger increase this year. Keep shooting yourselves in the foot if you want.

In St. Pete Beach, voters were asked to decide on issues before they went through the public hearing process and it was illegal.
The haircut we have been getting has resulted in foreclosure, half-built subdivisions, water restrictions and exisiting reisidents having to foot the bill for delvlopments they did not want in the first place.
I say, go ahead and shave my head, my hair will be heallthier when it grows back in.

In St. Pete Beach, voters were asked to decide on issues before they went through the public hearing process and it was illegal.
The haircut we have been getting has resulted in foreclosure, half-built subdivisions, water restrictions and exisiting reisidents having to foot the bill for delvlopments they did not want in the first place.
I say, go ahead and shave my head, my hair will be heallthier when it grows back in.

Ok, clearly you're not happy with the current landscape... So, let's have a discussion which actually explores the issue properly... Let's start by you describing in detail what you think our community's and the state's built environment should look like. How dense is development? Where is development? What kind of transport? What drives the economy in your scenario? What are the nature of the taxing structures and regulatory controls? (to simplify, you can just point out the things that would be different from now, and explain how they would become different in the way you describe)

Seriously, you want to talk, then let's talk in a way that is actually useful.

In St. Pete Beach, voters were asked to decide on issues before they went through the public hearing process and it was illegal.
The haircut we have been getting has resulted in foreclosure, half-built subdivisions, water restrictions and existing residents having to foot the bill for developments they did not want in the first place.
I say, go ahead and shave my head, my hair will be healthier when it grows back in.
Well to address your post lets start with foreclosures which is something we did not have control over. The deregulation from the federal government allowed banks to give loans to anybody and developers took advantage of that. Half built subdivisions is the crash of our real estate market which Florida helped kill its own market with the ridiculous insurance rates and property taxes. Water restrictions?? That is from nature and the several years we did not have rain honestly how would we avoid them? Please give examples of how we the taxpayers have "footed the bill" for developments? Sure we had to pay for widening and adding new infrastructure to allow for our endless sprawl but then again residents oppose urban development as I saw mass opposition for condos and higher density during the boom?

So tell me what would this plan make better? How would the group of people who don't want any development, retirees, people who want development, and so on be able to vote on something that would allow Florida to grow with success? In my opinion this would kill the already dying Florida economy and stop growth. You think those half built subdivisions are bad? Wait until you see half of the existing subdivisions lose residents because nobody wants to invest in an area so difficult to build in. My last two cents just think of the major industries of Florida which are agriculture, health care, tourism, and real estate. The real estate portion of our economy is/was massive and you get rid of that all of our industries will suffer.

^it's simpler to start out by describing the end result that is desired. Then we'll work backwards from there. If 'Amendment 4' really is the right solution, then we'll keep arriving at that same conclusion, no matter how much we try to avoid it.

True because I fail to see the same thing except anti-growth.

The issue is letting people wo live in a community decide how they want their communities to grow.

There are enough residential units on existing comprehensive plans throughout the state to add 100 million people. The construction and real esate industries will not come to a grinding halt.

Let's use this analogy: Eat what you've got on your plate before piling on more.

Lets use this analogy: Wanting more peas but you have to ask the people at the table first. 5-3 vote "no more peas" but you still want some peas because you're starving. But you can't have more peas because the majority have voted.

I'll admit my arrogance on confusing land use and land zoning, but the bottomline is Amendment will hurt our economy far worse than the thousands of empty homes. And if you can look at the fact, the empty homes are not the cause of our economy downturn, it's because of the banks. Yeah, it was stupid to approve thousands of homes with the whole "build it and they will come" mentality, but if it wasn't for the banks we would probably be talking about homes filling in faster than what they are today. I look at your endorsements and see a lot of them are environmental groups and I can't argue with them endorsing an amendment that will protect the environment. But the same could be done if you guys gathered pettitions and sent them in. And don't go off the whole "They don't listen and are only for the developer's cash" because that is just a assumption and pretty failed assumption. If it was the case, Pasco County commissioners would be millionaires by now lol

You obviously don't understand dthe concept of supply and demand either.

I have attended the entire last EAR process to Pasco's Comprehensive plan
where a group of concerned citizens accomplished the feat of having a rural
protection area written into our comprehensive plan.

Five years later, we are still waiting for the county to write the codes and ordinances.
I have attended development review meetings, planning commission meetings,
Land Development Agency meetings and countless commission meetings. I have
also attend to visioning workshops, land development code workshops and
stakeholders meetings. I am not alone, a group of us meet every week and
discuss upcoming county agenda items and we don't object to everything, as
some groups I know are known to do.
I write to my commissioners, I talk to our planners - I know that local
officials often disregard the professional recommendations of their staff in

favor of sweet talking land use attorneys hired by applicants for
development. I also have taken local concerns to staff reviewing submittals
to the Department of Community Affairs.
One reason people get discouraged here is that meetings here are held during

the day and people must take time off from work to attend. I have attended
some agenda items that were postponed at the last minute no less than three
times at the development review level and the same at the commission level
at the applicants request. The people who have taken time off to be heard
have wasted their time and even when meetings are not postponed, they only
have three minutes in front of a microphone to voice their concerns while
the applicants have seemingly limitless opportunity to convince the board.
If all commissions would follow Tom Pelham's Citizens Bill of Rights and at
least confine land use decisions to a supermajority vote that would be a
start, but that suggestion has been largely ignored by local officials.

I hate to break the news to you, but politics is a collaborative effort and not everything goes the way any one group thinks it should. Also, land use regs are really complicated and have extremely broad consequences for decades, they shouldn't be rushed. Unfortunately the current set of regulations, largely developed in the 50s-early 70s all focused on a development model that was dependent on car travel and cheap resources (gas). Those days are gone. The global economy is slowly emerging from a recession and gas prices are still $2.50+, so cheap resources aren't coming back. Unfortunately the primary result of Hometown Democracy is that existing zoning will most likely be locked in forever, as the political cost becomes so high no one is willing to make the effort to change things. Therefore as tastes and markets shift and change, localities will be unable to shift to meet the market.

This is why small mom and pop hotels are a dinosaur on the Pinellas Beaches. They will not make it, the market for them is slowly dying off and the younger crowd won't tolerate the low level of service quality. It became more valuable to tear down and build 5 story condos. Which are completely within the current regs. This is why you have a condo canyon on Treasure Island and it is developing on St.Pete Beach as well.

Similar situations will develop everywhere, as out of date usage requirements will force properties to either sit fallow, most of "light industrial" Pinellas Park and Largo. Or in cases where the least attractive solution is available, but legal, it'll be taken in a heartbeat and you'll get the least public good from the property (like condo canyon). There is one property avail on SPB that I wish I could afford to buy, just so I could design a condo that faces the water only and stick a block long 5 story windowless wall facing Gulf Blvd, just because I could and its currently legal.

I just see it as another log on the fire of Florida's brain drain. The best managers leave, the best architects leave, the best engineers, advertising execs, pr execs, designers, insurance execs, etc, etc. all leave because the Florida economy is too shallow as it is. This will only exacerbate the situation, as it leaves the economic environment less friendly to redevelopment of existing out of use properties. Making things harder to improve will not make the state better. This is the exact thinking that is killing the beaches, and will kill the rest of the state. If all you want are retirees and a good medical industry to support them, fine, just don't be surprised when property values never recover because the economic value of the rest of the state is so limited. If you wanna be dumb, you better be tough.

Somebody approved those codo canyons.
And I hate to break it to you, but people who live in a community have a right to determine how they want that community to grow.
Land use is not a right, approving more density should be determined on the basis of need, not greed or everybody ends up paying for infrastructure costs.
As far as Florida's brain drain, concentrate the effort into improving our education system and encouraging more jobs that pay a living wage instead of the service jobs that don't.
We can't rely on reidential development to build our way our of our sad economy. That is what has gotten us in it to begin with.

Wow, I'll be voting NO on this one.

No one approved them, because they didn't have to. It was legal to build them as is. As a developer you are given a box and set of rules for filling that box. Because landowners were limited to certain out dated requirements, they read the existing requirements, and built to what was allowed. All you have to do is read the regs, design the building and apply for permit at the building department, no public input necessary. Amateur Hour Public Imput, ala Hometown Democracy will only lead to more of this. The least common denominator will be built going through the fewest hurdles. If you see that there is an emerging market for residential in an area, but you are zoned light commercial, why bother trying to change the zoning if you know you'll get killed in extra costs fighting to make something that is emerging, just build another strip mall.

If your problem is new development from former green spaces / farm land then you might get some sympathy. However there is a constitutional concept known as the takings clause. Basically if you, the public, want to keep someone from doing something with their property, you are required to reimburse the owner for loss of value. Kind of like when you build a road through a big swath of property, you pay the guy for it. Now if you are stopping someone from utilizing an asset that cannot be utilized under existing regs, because those regs are outdated, then you are taking from him. Its a pretty common concept. I have no problem with public land acquisitions and channeled development, its extremely common in most other countries. We tend to be cheap here however and are unwilling to actually fund the acquisitions. So as long as you are willing to pay for your taking of someone's economic potential fine. Either buy the property, or reimburse for lessened value.

Regarding the long term future of the state, its a lot more than just education, its opportunity. Lots of people get great educations at Florida's universities, they just pack up and head to LA, Atlanta, Chicago, NY, Boston, etc after graduation, only returning for Christmas and vacations in South Beach. Florida can have the best education system in the world and it won't transform the shallow economy that is overly reliant on back office operations and cheap labor.

The issue is letting people wo live in a community decide how they want their communities to grow.

There are enough residential units on existing comprehensive plans throughout the state to add 100 million people. The construction and real esate industries will not come to a grinding halt.

Let's use this analogy: Eat what you've got on your plate before piling on more.
You didn't answer my question.

Again, stop with the ideological grandstanding and actually engage in some useful discussion.

Land use is not a right, approving more density should be determined on the basis of need, not greed or everybody ends up paying for infrastructure costs.
Ok I get it. Not only do you oppose one of the most fundamental foundations of our democracy(land rights), but you apparently want to eliminate the profit motive as our means of economic motivation (are you a Trekkie or something?)... Yeah, that's a realistic goal for this law to accomplish! lolololol


As far as Florida's brain drain, concentrate the effort into improving our education system and encouraging more jobs that pay a living wage instead of the service jobs that don't.
This would require that the Republicans ruling the state to actually believe in the concept of learning, and support the idea of public education at all... Remember, it is the Republicans who for years have tried all kinds of ways to dismantle the public education and university systems, and failing that, have passed needless mandate after mandate hamstringing them with so much bureaucratic red tape and BS that they can't possibly hope to meet the needs of the state's citizens and growing economy.

Hometown Democracy seems to be a nice accomplishment, but there is another side. If you have to ask the citizens for all the decisions you make, you will never get anywhere>>>Look at Coachman Park or the City Hall property in Clearwater. The nimby's vote down anything the city wants to do.

Sombody approved those condo canyon - and what are their occupancy rates, by the way?
The only way to stop Florida brain drain is to invest in our education system and start trying to attract something other than sevice jobs to this state.

We can't keep relying on residential growth to dig us out of our sorry economy. It is reliance on growth for growth sake that has gotten us into the mess we are in right now.

If we have the best engineers, the best designers the best insurance execs why do we have failing roadways, a budget crisis and an insurance debacle.
God help us if Florida today is an example of what the best and brightest can do.

Hometown Democracy seems to be a nice accomplishment, but there is another side. If you have to ask the citizens for all the decisions you make, you will never get anywhere>>>Look at Coachman Park or the City Hall property in Clearwater. The nimby's vote down anything the city wants to do.

And how many times do developers run to county commissions for zoning changes on farmland or low density property so they can sprawl it out with a strip mall and with a suburban housing complex?

Jill's comment seems to forget that - it's not density that's the problem in these developments (though Hometown Democracy was born from St. Pete Beach fighting developers who wanted to condo-ize the entire waterfront). The problem is the rules that are in place now and the rulers -- the people who keep supporting the developers who have been this state's traditional bread-and-butter.

Do I think Hometown Democracy is perfect? No, for the reasons that have been cited (Development being backlogged by way of public vote) but I also am totally against how this state as a whole has operated with land use. For every urban project that gets shot down by NIMBY's, there is a Wal Mart approved for the sake of adding tax dollars to coffers, no matter what kinds of negative impacts will take place by the location of the store.

For every "Condo Canyon", there are four times as many approved suburban housing developments that span hundreds of acres with rows of houses that will look the same and likely have low building standards with thanks to the build-in-bulk mentality of Florida developers.

The building department approved those condo canyons, because as I mentioned, zoning regs and building codes that were set up 50 years ago or longer allowed it to happen. No elected official had to approve anything it was out of their hands. Until you learn a bit about how the various levels of our government work, and what rules (meaning laws) they operate under I recommend you stay out of commenting on these types of issues.

Jill, are you actually reading any of these posts by the way? I'm saying things are bad, and getting worse. Florida doesn't have the best of anything (except maybe gerontologists) precisely because the economy is so shallow, the opportunities aren't there. The only thing HD would do is make matters worse, roll back what economic depth has been gained in the past 25 years and return Florida back to just a quaint retirement and vacation state. A slightly more civilized version of Jamaica or Mexican Riviera, only without a future. When you are in a hole, you generally want to stop digging. Right there is too much opportunity elsewhere for the best and brightest to leave. Those that do stay can only do so much. After watching the state for the past twenty years I can honestly say that I don't expect much anymore. Its always just going to be a place for back office, low value work and a vacation state. So maybe HD is the way to go, aim low pretty easy to meet those standards.

Sombody approved those condo canyon
Yeah, the people who own the land they're built on.


The only way to stop Florida brain drain is to invest in our education system and start trying to attract something other than sevice jobs to this state.
This law will not address such concerns in any helpful way. In fact, the construction of schools and universities would be slowed, if not halted by this mechanism, the same as any other development that requires a zoning change... Especially since land generally isn't rezoned for something like a school until it is needed and can be paid for.... Whoops, in your haste to 'fix' a certain problem, you're actually supporting a law that will screw up the problem you want to fix even more. (and sorry, but I know exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to schools in particular. At my last job, I designed schools (thank me when Steinbrenner High doesn't fall over in the next hurricane, cuz I'm the one who verified the structural calcs and created the book of shop drawings for construction), and the job before that, I was a land designer, and did things like compile govt zoning reports all day)

We can't keep relying on residential growth to dig us out of our sorry economy. It is reliance on growth for growth sake that has gotten us into the mess we are in right now.
You would have to show me where this law will make even the slightest dent in the issue you raise (what you call an oversupply of residential property) before I would believe it.


If we have the best engineers, the best designers the best insurance execs why do we have failing roadways, a budget crisis and an insurance debacle.
God help us if Florida today is an example of what the best and brightest can do.
That's the point. We DON'T have the best. Not even remotely close...

And how many times do developers run to county commissions for zoning changes on farmland or low density property so they can sprawl it out with a strip mall and with a suburban housing complex?

Jill's comment seems to forget that - it's not density that's the problem in these developments (though Hometown Democracy was born from St. Pete Beach fighting developers who wanted to condo-ize the entire waterfront). The problem is the rules that are in place now and the rulers -- the people who keep supporting the developers who have been this state's traditional bread-and-butter.

Do I think Hometown Democracy is perfect? No, for the reasons that have been cited (Development being backlogged by way of public vote) but I also am totally against how this state as a whole has operated with land use. For every urban project that gets shot down by NIMBY's, there is a Wal Mart approved for the sake of adding tax dollars to coffers, no matter what kinds of negative impacts will take place by the location of the store.

For every "Condo Canyon", there are four times as many approved suburban housing developments that span hundreds of acres with rows of houses that will look the same and likely have low building standards with thanks to the build-in-bulk mentality of Florida developers.

This law would do absolutely nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, to address those concerns... As DShenise has already effectively pointed out, the zoning is already there for something even sprawlier and shittier in 99% of cases for rezoning. It should be OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain that property owners are not going to go through the time and expense of holding a public election before doing their project (most of them can't afford to anyways)... Obviously, they will only develop whatever shitbox plan left over from the 1970s that's already on the books for the property. And think of what this would do to permitting fees? Can you imagine how much the paperwork for any project is going to cost once 'no new taxes' idiot politicians pay for those zoning elections by logically raising permitting fees?

Land use takes precedent over zoning. Legally.
If you think the same folks who have brought you the strip centers, Wal-Marts, WalGreeen and CVS pn every corner as well as massive subdivisions where there was no demonstrated need are going to start making good decisions all of a sudden you are practicing the art of magical thinking.
When you change nothing, nothing changes.

Land use takes precedent over zoning. Legally.
If you think the same folks who have brought you the strip centers, Wal-Marts, WalGreeen and CVS pn every corner as well as massive subdivisions where there was no demonstrated need are going to start making good decisions all of a sudden you are practicing the art of magical thinking.
When you change nothing, nothing changes.

Well my parents, and our neighbors fought a giant shopping strip that was slated to built across the street from our house (it never got built cos we complained enough). In fact that land is still undeveloped!!!! If the people are proactive in their community civic association they can prevent things from being done.

There's an easier way to solve this problem...
BOYCOTT THOSE COMPANIES AND BUY LOCAL!

Land use takes precedent over zoning. Legally.
If you think the same folks who have brought you the strip centers, Wal-Marts, WalGreeen and CVS pn every corner as well as massive subdivisions where there was no demonstrated need are going to start making good decisions all of a sudden you are practicing the art of magical thinking.
When you change nothing, nothing changes.
Sorry, but you're still not getting it. The zoning you don't like is already on the books. Those property owners don't need anyone's approval to keep developing things the way things have been developed for decades. This law will instead severely hamper a community's ability to fix the mistakes of the past, and adapt itself to a changing economy and evolving population demographic over time.

I'll say it again, because you're not listening... The things you describe as wanting to see improved in our community will NOT be improved by this proposed law, and in many cases, would be irreparably damaged, so long as the law would remain on the books.

Well my parents, and our neighbors fought a giant shopping strip that was slated to built across the street from our house (it never got built cos we complained enough). In fact that land is still undeveloped!!!! If the people are proactive in their community civic association they can prevent things from being done.

There's an easier way to solve this problem...
BOYCOTT THOSE COMPANIES AND BUY LOCAL!
Exactly! How do you think we(Tampa Bay) have the worst road network compared to any major city in Florida? The idiot residents of the past complained enough to kill every necessary freeway and artery roads in order to do exactly what this amendment will do which is stop development. The general mentality of people here is that of "we don't want development in our neighborhood" and if almost every neighborhood thinks that way you end up going backwards which is what we have been doing and what we will continue to do if this amendment passes.

Now I read over this thread on my cell while on break at work so I'll just generally write a reply. I like Dshenise's posts because that is basically the reality of it. First off the economy in Florida is in deep trouble and adding this to the mix will really hurt things. The education in Florida is actually improving but one thing we have only gotten worse with is preparing students for college which will only contribute to keep adding low service jobs.

Next I've learned through real estate and construction that the majority of people in Florida want everything on the cheap making developments of quality difficult to get. Those "condo canyons" along St. Pete Beach and Clearwater Beach are mostly low quality design and just bulky masses. See people fight density and development and don't give a second thought to fighting for quality design. As somebody posted that we could have tall, slender, modern designs, and have green space or other things. It embarrasses me to see the last big condo on Clearwater Beach which is basically on our "Ocean Drive" and its a big, pink, ugly mass and bland as can be! I don't blame the developer as they followed the codes but you know they had to make money and make use of the space.

If you want to see an example of people having their say I welcome you to drive through north Pinellas County where people have got to decide the zoning and have chosen to keep parts of the county the same as when they were agricultural. Only problem is the area still grew and those people fought against upgrading roads and adding anything significant which led to the area being one big sprawled out suburban mess as it is now.

I am listeing. Zoning and land use have to be compatible if the property is to be developed.
If the future land use says one thing and the zoning says another a land use chnage has to be requested or the zoning means squat.
Just try and downplan somebody and see what kind of lawsuits you are going to get.
People have a right to make investment-backed decisions when they purchase their property expecting the county or municipality to follow their long-term growth plan.
Long term is not every six months.

Here is my theory behind why the state wants this and that is to stop any new development to let the houses fill up and artificially inflate the home prices. Take Australia for example it is very difficult to build new developments because of the strict laws they have on building on new land and their home prices are very very high.

Nothing will change, even if the amendment will get approved. Crooked politicians and their developer buddies will find ways around it.....The way how politicians think has to change. Most of them just think as far as the next term elections, but not really what's the best interest for the area in long term future.

And many of the commissioners go on to run for a higher seated role. I'm highly dedicated in running for county commission after USF and really don't want to go on to anything bigger after that. I don't think I have the ability to run for New Port Richey council since I live outside the city limits, but it would be nice to. But really, I wouldn't be bribed for any money as county commissioner. I wrote a article for the Times which unfortunately wasn't published because I didn't know that them calling me was to verify it was really me, but I wrote that if the Ridge Rd. expansion did happen that the county commission should also put on a 50-year ban of any sort of development along the stretch due to it being in the Starkey Park boundaries. I'm for development in Pasco, but smart development and compact growth. We oughta be focusing on building up New Port Richey and Zephyrhills and not continue to approve these 1,000 developments along Suncoast and SR 54. Like the one on SR 54 just east of Suncoast which broke ground in the past couple months. I'm stuck asking why.

Sorry, local and state governments have the ability to exercise eminent domain when the projects under consideration are for the public good, such a a new roadway.

And they do it all of the time.

People do have a right to say how their want their communities to grow... it is why there is public input in the EAR process. Communities belong to the people living in them, not to the officials elected to represent them.
People's lives and where they live are not some some lego experiment.

TampaMike.
I'm asking why too.
The town center concept which John Gallagher is so fond of doen't work... Connerton is a classic example.
The idea behind them is for people to live and work in the same place, but in order for the busnesses to be attracted to the town center they need certain population levels to be economically feasable. In order for there to be population, people have to live in the town center. If they can afford to live there they have to have a job somewhere else so they end up driving out of the place where they live to go to work and the jobs that are created in the town center are mostly service jobs that don't pay a living wage.

People don't trust their representatives because they are tired of their communities being used as guinea pigs for failed development concepts. There has been study after study which shows that growth does not pay for itself. If existing residents are eventually going to have to foot the bill with their increased property taxes to support new growth, they should have the ability to say no.

As for Ridge Road, how many times can you mitigate a mitigation before the whole concept is meaningless.
The Serenova preserve was supposed to make up for wetlands lost to the building of the Suncoast Parkway.
Building that road will do nothing except open the property up for more sprawl.
As an evacuation route it will just take people to the Suncoast Parkaway which only goes as far north as Crystal River. Then what?

^YES! Amendment 4 will fix ALL of those concerns!

Why even vote? Let's just all wish it at the same time, and it will just magically happen!

People don't trust their representatives because they are tired of their communities being used as guinea pigs for failed development concepts.
Please show a poll or testimony which supports this claim.


There has been study after study which shows that growth does not pay for itself.
WOW, really?!?!? Please, please, please, just link us to one respectable study proving this assertion.

If this were true, why does the human population keep defying your logic by growing? If the development required to accommodate future population growth really doesn't 'pay for itself' as you assert, then how many generations do you estimate we have left before we build too much and drive ourselves into extinction?

If existing residents are eventually going to have to foot the bill with their increased property taxes to support new growth, they should have the ability to say no.
They do. It's called contraception.


As an evacuation route it will just take people to the Suncoast Parkaway which only goes as far north as Crystal River. Then what?
Everyone dies, because the road ends at the edge of the world (as you already know, it's flat).

Sorry, local and state governments have the ability to exercise eminent domain when the projects under consideration are for the public good, such a a new roadway.

And they do it all of the time.

People do have a right to say how their want their communities to grow... it is why there is public input in the EAR process. Communities belong to the people living in them, not to the officials elected to represent them.
People's lives and where they live are not some some lego experiment.
:lol: You do know with eminent domain the government most of the time buys the properties at or even above market value because those people have to go somewhere. Do you have any idea how much that would cost in areas already filled in? It was painful enough watching the redo of I-275 in Tampa which still isn't finished because it was expensive enough to run out of funding. Eminent domain is not used all the time in fact it is not used that often at all unless you have a source to show that. The people do have a right to say how they want their communities to grow but stopping growth and expansion is shear stupidity and is a recipe for failure.

Instead as I was saying we need to push for more efficient infrastructure(mass transit, good highways) to allow for growth and to manage traffic efficiently not bottleneck it because somebody didn't want a large road in front of their subdivision. Human nature is experimentation we try new things all the time and the smart ones stop using failing methods or try a different approach.

TampaMike.
I'm asking why too.
The town center concept which John Gallagher is so fond of doen't work... Connerton is a classic example.
The idea behind them is for people to live and work in the same place, but in order for the busnesses to be attracted to the town center they need certain population levels to be economically feasable. In order for there to be population, people have to live in the town center. If they can afford to live there they have to have a job somewhere else so they end up driving out of the place where they live to go to work and the jobs that are created in the town center are mostly service jobs that don't pay a living wage.
Well a true town center does not happen overnight but the service jobs is not the town center its this state! Have you been to a large city before or another country? How is it that in a country like ours that we have worse urban planning than some third world countries? Town centers are only as successful as they are planned to be and how people allow them to be. I've been to pretty successful town centers in Dallas and its because they plan them well. Hell I've been to small towns in Europe with 20,000 people that were planned better than anything in Pasco county.

People don't trust their representatives because they are tired of their communities being used as guinea pigs for failed development concepts. There has been study after study which shows that growth does not pay for itself. If existing residents are eventually going to have to foot the bill with their increased property taxes to support new growth, they should have the ability to say no.
Examples of this? Last time I checked people are praising the redevelopments of our downtowns here in Florida. New urbanism across the country has been meet with praise so I fail to see these new guinea pig failed concepts? If you mean the same concept we've stuck with for 50 years which is sprawl out uncontrollably maybe that is it. Another thing is many people here don't like change so even if its positive growth they oppose it, that is a big mentality here in Florida and especially Tampa Bay. If you have a homestead exemption and other factors that you really don't have to worry too much about increased property taxes. People really have a foolish mentality if they want to live in a metro area with millions of people and expect no growth.

As for Ridge Road, how many times can you mitigate a mitigation before the whole concept is meaningless.
The Serenova preserve was supposed to make up for wetlands lost to the building of the Suncoast Parkway.
Building that road will do nothing except open the property up for more sprawl.
As an evacuation route it will just take people to the Suncoast Parkaway which only goes as far north as Crystal River. Then what?
The Suncoast Parkway is probably the only good example of planning in Pasco County. The sprawl was already creeping up to where it was built and along the coast there is the mess they call US19 and then there is Little Rd which ends in Hudson and on the other side of the Pkwy you have US 41 which is the only major N/S road until I-75. Can you imagine the nightmare of traffic in those areas? I remember driving US 19 to Brookesville during rush hour and I'd shoot myself if I had to do that everyday, what a mess! Even with the Parkway I've been up there and during peak times those horrid country roads become clogged with traffic because they are too small to handle traffic efficiently. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of living out in the middle of nowhere?

TampaMike.
I'm asking why too.
The town center concept which John Gallagher is so fond of doen't work... Connerton is a classic example.
The idea behind them is for people to live and work in the same place, but in order for the busnesses to be attracted to the town center they need certain population levels to be economically feasable. In order for there to be population, people have to live in the town center. If they can afford to live there they have to have a job somewhere else so they end up driving out of the place where they live to go to work and the jobs that are created in the town center are mostly service jobs that don't pay a living wage.

People don't trust their representatives because they are tired of their communities being used as guinea pigs for failed development concepts. There has been study after study which shows that growth does not pay for itself. If existing residents are eventually going to have to foot the bill with their increased property taxes to support new growth, they should have the ability to say no.

As for Ridge Road, how many times can you mitigate a mitigation before the whole concept is meaningless.
The Serenova preserve was supposed to make up for wetlands lost to the building of the Suncoast Parkway.
Building that road will do nothing except open the property up for more sprawl.
As an evacuation route it will just take people to the Suncoast Parkaway which only goes as far north as Crystal River. Then what?
People aren't going to live and work in the same place if their career isn't there. Judging by the prices from 3 years ago, they had to be making definately over $100,000 each to buy a house with mortgage. And most of these town centers offer restaurants, law offices, family shops, small retailers, and other offices. Only way my father would be able to live and work there is if they added a job to build military vehicles. Pretty sure that won't happen. The county should just worry about building up what they already have and not sprawling the whole place. New Port Richey could be a great mid-sized city if someone just pushed for it. If the county instead focused on building apartment and condo projects that were atleast 5 stories, I bet 15% of the people who bought homes out in Central Pasco would had invested in a condo unit in New Port Richey. The thing is, New Port Richey doesn't have the best of roadways for future residents and it's going to be stuck at mediocre level if the city and county don't answer that problem.

I'll disagree with your second statement on the basis that I'm pretty sure our property taxes don't go to support new growth. I'm even pretty sure that's illegal to give our taxes to private developers. Growth isn't really a bad thing, if done right. The approving of these 1,000+ home developments that now lay 75% empty surely doesn't convince the public that growth is good, but if we had some commissioners that looked at how many homes the have approved and said "hey we have 20,000+ homes approved right now, shouldn't we slow it down a little?", we wouldn't be where we are today. And there are some people out there that would had done so, like me for example. But look at our elections, no one challenged anyone except for someone in Port Richey or somewhere and now they sit on their seat for another 2nd, 3rd, or 4th term. How is anything going to change when the public itself isn't interested in changing what is wrong?

Ridge Road is a hard deal for me. I think it would be nice to have another route from New Port Richey and surrounding areas to the Suncoast Parkway, but we already have SR 52 and SR 54. And justifying it by saying that it will be a evacuation is ridiculous because that money instead should had went to expanding SR 52 to widen it somewhat from Suncoast to I-75. It's a lane road that will likely carry out people everyone from Hudson and Northwest Pasco. And Ridge Rd. right now is only 2 lanes and should be 4 lanes because of the amount of traffic that travels on it every day. Instead, they want to expand it to Suncoast which will only mean more cars trying to fit on a 2 lane road.

This is so silly. The current process has public input does it not? The last time there was any project that was even discussed, the public had the option to speak to the council and give their opinion. I certainly would hate to see what is built if we all get to vote on it. I don't know many voters who are educated in the areas of land use or city planning.

Also, Florida has a pretty decent education system. It isn't number one, but we face unique challenges in this state that many other states don't face. Part of the problem is trying to get those who graduate from our universities to actually stay in Florida. There needs to be more opportunity here for high paying jobs. Frankly, right now there isn't anything like that. Not to mention, our home prices were outrageous just a couple of years ago. I had friends who moved to places like Dallas because they could get higher salaries and a 5 bedroom house instead of a 2 bedroom run-down bungalow they'd get for the same price in Tampa. The housing prices are starting to correct, but the jobs and salaries are still low. With the current economy, most states are in trouble. I know people are leaving California in droves, and many more would leave if they could sell their houses. The same thing is happening in Florida. I talk to my neighbors, and they all say they are moving out of state as soon as they can sell their houses. These are all young professionals.

^You guys know my personal story. I know a couple dozen young professionals who have moved out of the state in recent times. (Unfortunately, that stripped away almost all of my circle of friends, which probably explains why I'm generally distant these days. It's very taxing to do nothing but say goodbye to people for like 3 years straight)

Hell, just in December, two more couples who were close friends moved (my new best friends after my old best friends moved a couple of years ago). One couple owned a company in DT NPR. They let it go under and moved to Alabama (has business connections there). Them moving means that two other businesses also moved and cost the area several jobs (and cost me the chance at partnership).... The other couple are a private practice accountant and a realtor, who started a coffee business (that sells products in Whole Foods no less). They obviously moved the company with them.... And it's like this over and over and over again. I personally know 25-30 people, all who were 25-35yrs old, all college grads and/or business owners, who have all moved out of state and who will never, ever come back. (most of them haven't even visited, since their families are originally from somewhere else anyways)


Again, this law will do N-O-T-H-I-N-G to address the problems people are bringing up in this thread. Amendment 4 will only make them harder to solve by adding another layer of cost and bureaucracy to government, and will likely make many of the issues we face even worse.

^^Exactly and I'd say nearly everyone I know in college is planning to leave the state including myself after college, what does that say?

If you are already in a hole, stop digging.

Making things less desirable for adaptive reuse, and that is the main problem with this, basically kills future redevelopment projects. Just because the ruralistas tend to lose their fights, doesn't mean you come up with a sledgehammer solution that fill screw existing built-up communities like Pinellas County and the City of Tampa. All this does is lock in unsustainable development patterns for the future. Does anyone really move to Pasco or Hernando thinking that things will never change? That all that farm land sitting there doing nothing will forever be there doing nothing? I'm fine with greenbelts and public lands, just pay for them.

[QUOTE=Jasonhouse;52354269]Please show a poll or testimony which supports this claim.



WOW, really?!?!? Please, please, please, just link us to one respectable study proving this assertion.

QUOTE]

Dear, one million people signed petitions to place Amendment 4 on the ballot in november... that is better stastistics than any poll.

[QUOTE=DShenise;52394821]If you are already in a hole, stop digging.

Making things less desirable for adaptive reuse, and that is the main problem with this, basically kills future redevelopment projects. QUOTE]

Not necessarily, depends on whether the project would rely on a land use change.

^You guys know my personal story. I know a couple dozen young professionals who have moved out of the state in recent times. (Unfortunately, that stripped away almost all of my circle of friends, which probably explains why I'm generally distant these days. It's very taxing to do nothing but say goodbye to people for like 3 years straight)

Hell, just in December, two more couples who were close friends moved (my new best friends after my old best friends moved a couple of years ago). One couple owned a company in DT NPR. They let it go under and moved to Alabama (has business connections there). Them moving means that two other businesses also moved and cost the area several jobs (and cost me the chance at partnership).... The other couple are a private practice accountant and a realtor, who started a coffee business (that sells products in Whole Foods no less). They obviously moved the company with them.... And it's like this over and over and over again. I personally know 25-30 people, all who were 25-35yrs old, all college grads and/or business owners, who have all moved out of state and who will never, ever come back. (most of them haven't even visited, since their families are originally from somewhere else anyways)


Again, this law will do N-O-T-H-I-N-G to address the problems people are bringing up in this thread. Amendment 4 will only make them harder to solve by adding another layer of cost and bureaucracy to government, and will likely make many of the issues we face even worse.

That is your opinion. Do you have a better solution?

This is so silly. The current process has public input does it not? The last time there was any project that was even discussed, the public had the option to speak to the council and give their opinion. I certainly would hate to see what is built if we all get to vote on it. I don't know many voters who are educated in the areas of land use or city planning.

Also, Florida has a pretty decent education system. .

When was the last time you went to a commission meeting and voiced your opinion on a proposed project?
I have been going to commision meeting regularly for the last five years.
And as far as the state's education system, it may be fine for mainstream education, but I have a daughter who graduated with an International Baccalaureate diploma and a son in special ed, things aren't so rosy on either end of the spectrum.

I'll disagree with your second statement on the basis that I'm pretty sure our property taxes don't go to support new growth. I'm even pretty sure that's illegal to give our taxes to private developers. Growth isn't really a bad thing, if done right. The approving of these 1,000+ home developments that now lay 75% empty surely doesn't convince the public that growth is good, but if we had some commissioners that looked at how many homes the have approved and said "hey we have 20,000+ homes approved right now, shouldn't we slow it down a little?", we wouldn't be where we are today. And there are some people out there that would had done so, like me for example. But look at our elections, no one challenged anyone except for someone in Port Richey or somewhere and now they sit on their seat for another 2nd, 3rd, or 4th term. How is anything going to change when the public itself isn't interested in changing what is wrong?


Tampa Mike, do a search on Tischer & Associates cost of services analysis. They did one for Sarasota County, Hillsborough County, Plant City and sevral other Florida municipalities. The conclusions were that after the initial positive impact of funds due to increased tax base, new growth ended up costing communities millions of dollars a year.
Growth is a ponzi scheme depending on new growth to support the old.

The approving of these 1,000+ home developments that now lay 75% empty surely doesn't convince the public that growth is good, but if we had some commissioners that looked at how many homes the have approved and said "hey we have 20,000+ homes approved right now, shouldn't we slow it down a little?", we wouldn't be where we are today. And there are some people out there that would had done so, like me for example. But look at our elections, no one challenged anyone except for someone in Port Richey or somewhere and now they sit on their seat for another 2nd, 3rd, or 4th term. How is anything going to change when the public itself isn't interested in changing what is wrong?


Obviously the public is interested in changing what is wrong or a million of us wouldn't have signed petitions to put Florida Hometown Democracy on the ballot.
With Amendment 4 we will have the ability to say "shouldn't we slow down a little" when commissioners approve another 20,000+ homes" by voting no when they say yes.

Growth is a Ponzi scheme? Tell that to the Chinese, or maybe the Indians, how about the Brazilians, Malaysia maybe? I guess its a global conspiracy. Go ahead and pass it, I love watching people make stupid uniformed mistakes. Its why I love Deal or No Deal, watching people make asinine longshot bets warms my heart. I love the people who go in behind in their mortgage and throw $100K away because they have a 10% chance of winning. They have a 90% chance of losing, but they had their "beliefs" and their "feelings". Kind the same with those longing for the good old days in Florida. Kinda sad really.

Like I said if you are planning on taking something from someone (economic viability of an asset), you ought to pay for it. Otherwise its just theft.

Hometown Democracy is an absurd waste of resources. Having to vote on every change will further bankrupt the state/local govt, not to mention kill the construction portion of the economy - not to mention all the lawsuit (has anyone considered whether it is even legal to retroactively restrict property rights). If it were limited in scope to huge developments, there may be a rational, though flawed, argument for it. As it stands, it is just nuts.

If you want development to pay for itself, you should have proposed an amendment doing that. What you did instead was create a bureaucratic nightmare. Even if it passes, which it probably won't, it will be repealed in the next election. I don't think you'll find much support on this forum for Hometown Bureaucracy. Not to mention, simply saying that people living in communities have a right to determine how they develop is silly - what does that mean. . . nothing. It is a cliched slogan. You could remove the local government officials.

As for neotraditional development - they work all over the place. They are not a failed model. Connerton was screwed up by the financial crisis, which had to do with irresponsible borrowing, loaning, etc. by the same people you want to vote, as well as securitization issues - and the complacent export of major industries leading to a debtor economy - which Hometown Democracy will only accelerate as it bleeds the state's coffers and jobs.

Apparently you misunderstand your audience: We mostly want more and better development.

And you misunderstand the concept of a ponzi scheme. . . another silly slogan.

Let me add my own, this is a change you can disbelieve in.

Dear, one million people signed petitions to place Amendment 4 on the ballot in november... that is better stastistics than any poll.
A push poll (which is what a petition amounts to, since it only tracks 'yes' votes) and a scientific study are NOT even remotely the same thing... Surely you realize this, so why ignore my question and sidetrack it with this meaningless petition crap?

That is your opinion. Do you have a better solution?
Yes... Try reading this forum.


When was the last time you went to a commission meeting and voiced your opinion on a proposed project?
Umm, I sat on a bus today for 8 hours for TBARTA polling people about what they think should be done to improve bus service in Pasco County. Why what did YOU do today?

A push poll (which is what a petition amounts to, since it only tracks 'yes' votes) and a scientific study are NOT even remotely the same thing... Surely you realize this, so why ignore my question and sidetrack it with this meaningless petition crap?

We can argue that one.. Depends on how polls are worded, who is asked the question, how many people are polled -etc., etc.

If you want development to pay for itself, you should have proposed an amendment doing that.
And you misunderstand the concept of a ponzi scheme. . . another silly slogan.
There are supposed to be rules to keep development from financially impacting existing residents (no compensation for loss of quality of life,though) and they are called impact fees and concurrency.

Elected officials pass and repeal impact fees at random, but the costs of development don't change, roads, schools, sewer, water (which we are running out of - another extension of water restructions announced yesterday), libraries, parks, then the cost to maintain and replace the infrastructure as it ages.

No, ponzi is accurate... when local governments rely on initial increased tax base to make up for budget deficits and compounding it's responsibility to supply police, fire service, etc., etc., when they approve an incompatible development and sell an existing neighborhood down the river for an intersection improvement, that's a pretty good example of pozni.
What's your definition?

Growth is a Ponzi scheme? Tell that to the Chinese, or maybe the Indians, how about the Brazilians, Malaysia maybe? Kinda sad really.

Like I said if you are planning on taking something from someone (economic viability of an asset), you ought to pay for it. Otherwise its just theft.


Would you be willing to have your government tell you how many children you can have? I have an idea, why don't we outsource a few more jobs? Pretty soon, the only thing left for Americans to do will be construction - but we'll still get our dywall from China, of course and our beef from South America.
Kinda "sad "to want to protect the environment?
Land use is not a right, it is an entitlement.
Not everyone wants to live in an urban environment.
Then there is the insurance crisis, but that's a whole other debate.

I must say that this whole debate really is interesting, and is quite civil compared to some - even on this board.

If I may play moderator for a little bit so we can move this debate forward:

Jill: Please show where there have been studies, actual enactments and or polls supporting the merits of a system like "Hometown Democracy" aside from the signatures that placed the issue on the ballot (leaving the potential push poll issues aside as well).

DShenise: Please show where in the proposed amendment the government is going to take or change land rights without compensation to the individual.

Jason: Please provide information as to current land use laws that may or may not show that this amendment is either not needed or will encourage people to move out of the state.

Everyone: leave issues of the merits or failures of other economic and governmental models (such as China's, Vietnam's, or Malaysia's governmental model) out of the question. We are not those countries and we are far from being like them in either government or growth. Comparison to countries such as Canada, Australia, Germany, Chile, etc. that actually have similar laws and governmental structures as ours is OK.


If I have overstepped my bounds please just ignore me, but I thought it might be a way to move forward in the debate rather than going in circles.

Steve

http://www.apalachtimes.com/articles/florida-7683-growth-officials.html

Thoughts for the Times
Growth, as we residents want it for our communities
October 29, 2009 11:05 AM
By Mel Kelly
What does growth really look like to Florida communities?

Three skinny mini condos built on each 100 feet of waterfront, repeated down the beach shoreline?

Million dollar-plus residences unsold or unoccupied?

Thousands of acres platted, approved and unbuilt? Subdivisions dominating previously rural countryside? Empty, deteriorating strip malls and vacant office spaces?

How many citizens really want such development?

Seventy-four percent of Americans want NO NEW DEVELOPMENT crowding out their town, according to the national Saint Index poll taken in late 2008, which tracks attitudes toward real estate development projects and tracks the politics of land use.

Such statistics clearly demonstrate the need to approve the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 on the Nov. 2010 statewide ballot.

Have our community voices been heard throughout Florida when major development decisions would clearly impact and change the nature of a county or a town? 72 percent nationwide would grade their community C or worse when it comes to deciding what does and does not get built, the Saint Index Poll reveals. The percentage may well be much higher in Florida, where there is widespread awareness of overdevelopment and the political corruption behind it.

According to Tom Palmer in the Lakeland Ledger, local officials were handing out building permits as fast as developers submitted them.

Community comprehensive land-use plans, which are written for a 20-year framework using public input, and which are also prioritized and approved according to that public input, are instead being short-circuited when temporarily elected local officials respond to outside developer pressures.

Is politics-for-profit in play? Recent, upper-level growth decisions seem to keep a greedy eye towards campaign contributors rather than good statewide future planning. Corruption of publicly-elected officials has recently been proven, investigated, or suspected within numerous growth projects throughout Florida. According to Governor Crist, an apparent culture of corruption calls for a statewide grand jury to take a sweeping look at honesty-in-government in Florida.

Again, the Poll reveals, 69 percent believe the relationship between developers and elected officials makes the land-use approval process unfair.

Who is influencing the growth decisions made by elected officials in YOUR town?

Amendment # 4 is a new and important ballot opportunity that mandates local public input on community growth plans. It grew upward in the best grassroots style from petitions signed and collected by Florida’s resident-taxpayers. Hometown Democracy’s Amendment #4 offers exactly what its hopeful name promises. Yes votes for Amendment 4 will help guarantee the opportunity for people in their own town to have a ballot-box say about the future growth someone else is proposing for that hometown.. Amendment 4 requires that growth-directed changes to the comprehensive land-use plans of local governments must be approved by the voters as well as by local elected officials. Citizens will then be heard on the future of their own communities.

When I ran successfully for Mayor of the City of Carrabelle, local voters agreed with my campaign slogan: “The City Should Plan for Development; Developers Shouldn’t Plan the City.”

Small and big-business interests, developers, realtors, big-time political contributors, and lobbyists are shaping the Florida of tomorrow. Such decisions made about Florida’s growth too often favor special interests. (I urge you to notice who is speak loudly against the Hometown Democracy Amendment. Could such organized voices have the most to fear if local voters are allowed to decide about development projects proposed for their own towns?)

Your YES vote for Amendment 4 will guarantee residents of your city and county the right to making the decisions determining the future of local growth. Passage of Amendment 4 will help to assure that within communities in the Panhandle, the Atlantic and Gulf Coast, as well as the inland cities of our state, local residents can choose what growth will best fit their area. For my Carrabelle, and for all the beautiful Florida areas where you live, our YES vote for Florida Hometown Democracy’s Amendment 4 will assure that the future decisions about growth through local development will be in our hands!

Isn’t that what the idea of Hometown Democracy really means?

Mel Kelly was the proud mayor of the City of Carrabelle from 2005 to 2007.

Interesting read, but it is an opinion piece, not really a news article. Also, the only poll listed was preformed by Saint who admittedly is biased towards "Anyone who absolutely must win a tough land use battle."http://tscg.biz/what-we-do/who-hires-saint Whether that means they would be more biased for or against is rather irrelevant, it simply means that the results and questions will be tilted towards the funder. Of course this is often the case with many polls, that is why we must be careful and vigilant where they come from.

Steve

http://www.northeastpascoconcernedcitizens.info/cost%20of%20services%20fiscal%20analysis%20studies,%20etc/cost_of_growth.pdf

Does Growth Pay for Itself?
In most communities, the issue is not so much the rate of growth as the type of growth and how the
costs of growth are paid for. Under conditions of slow or moderate growth, local citizens are often
willing to subsidize growth to a certain extent, but such support for growth tends to evaporate when
growth accelerates. The extent to which growth pays for itself, in terms of public costs borne by the
community as a whole, then becomes a significant issue. One approach to quantifying this is fiscal
impact analysis.
Fiscal impact analysis attempts to calculate the costs required to serve a new development and
compare that to anticipated revenues that the new development will generate. Most fiscal impact
studies focus primarily on annual operating costs, with capital costs reflected in debt service
payments, simply because of the difficulty of determining the capacity of existing capital facilities to
accommodate a particular development. The outcome of such studies depends on a number of
factors specific to the jurisdiction affected and the proposed development, including taxing
structure, types and levels of services provided by the jurisdiction, and property value of the homes
and businesses to be constructed, among many others. Some fiscal impact studies are performed to
help communities decide whether to approve or annex a particular development. These studies have
generally shown that most conventional residential development does not pay for itself, while
nonresidential development most often generates a fiscal surplus for the local government (Burchell
1998).
Studies of the fiscal impacts of growth area often confounded by noncomparability in the types and
levels of services that are provided. For example, some studies have shown that public sector costs
are higher in jurisdictions with higher average density or intensity of development. However, urban
areas, where densities are higher, also tend to provide additional services that are typically not
provided at all in rural environments (e.g., libraries), as well as higher levels of service (e.g.,
professional versus volunteer fire protection). It would be an error to conclude from these studies
that lower density development would be cheaper to serve than a higher density development within
the same community at the same level of service.
Fiscal impact analysis has also been used to evaluate community-wide alternative growth scenarios.
Probably the most well-known of these have been the studies performed by the Center for Urban
Policy Research at Rutgers University of the New Jersey State Plan (Burchell 1992; Burchell 2000).
The latest of these impact assessments compares fiscal outcomes for the state during 20 years of
development (2000-2020) in conformance with the State Plan ("plan") versus expected development
over the same period assuming the continuation of historical development patterns ("trend"). The
plan alternative directs more development to existing urban and exurban centers and less
development into rural and environmentally sensitive areas. It is also assumed that the plan
alternative would have more households occupying attached dwellings rather than detached singlefamily
housing. The results of the analysis indicate that both alternatives would result in fiscal
deficits for local governments, largely due to the fact that most of the anticipated development will
be residential, which generally does not pay for itself. However, the deficits would be $160 million
less under the plan alternative. This fiscal advantage results primarily from the greater utilization of
excess infrastructure and service capacity in established communities and the benefit of their existing
tax structure.
3
A recent study that included the development of a fiscal impact model for local governments in the
state of Minnesota came to similar conclusions (Duncan 1999). The model was based on a statewide
analysis of 240 cities, counties and townships, 88 municipal water and wastewater systems and
a sample of 200 independent school districts. The state-wide statistical analysis found that per capita
road maintenance costs within a county (sum of cities, townships and county budgets) tended to
decline as density, residential market value and percent of city residents increased. It also found that
per capita utility operating costs declined with increased linear density (more connections per mile of
pipe) and that school transportation costs decline as residential densities increase. The study also
applied the model to five counties, as well as a city and township located in the same school district
within each county, and projected fiscal impacts of anticipated residential growth over a future 20-
year period. For city budgets, the fiscal impact of residential growth was positive in four of the five
case studies. Residential development outside of cities had mixed fiscal impacts on rural township
governments. Residential development had a negative fiscal impact on county budgets in all five
case studies. When the fiscal impacts on county and municipal (city and township) budgets were
combined, the results were almost always negative, but in every case residential development was
less costly to serve if located in cities rather than in rural townships. The study concluded from the
state-wide analysis that local government costs could be reduced by encouraging development within
existing developed areas (typically cities) and discouraging development in outlying rural areas.
Whether growth pays for itself cannot be answered without looking at specifics. Scattered
residences built in rural areas can have a positive fiscal effect in the short run as they take access to
existing roads and otherwise utilize existing excess capacity. The cumulative effect over time can be
quite different, as existing roads become congested and new residents begin to demand urban levels
of services. Fiscal impacts can be positive for some levels of government and negative for others.
In general, though, research indicates that residential development by itself seldom generates
positive fiscal impacts, and fiscal effects tend to be more positive when new development is located
closer to areas already served with existing infrastructure.
Capital Costs of Growth
Much of the focus in the cost of growth debate has been on capital costs, and justifiably so. Even
development that is fiscally advantageous over the long term will not generate sufficient revenues up
front to cover the infrastructure costs required to provide service to the development. If bonds are
issued to finance the improvements, tax and utility rates for existing residents will often have to be
increased to pay the debt service. If the improvements are not made, levels of service decline (e.g.,
increased traffic congestion) and service disruptions (e.g., water rationing) increase. In the 1960s
and 1970s, much of the infrastructure costs related to growth, such as expansions of wastewater
treatment plants, were subsidized with grants from the federal government. Those days are gone, as
are the days of automatic voter approval of growth-related bond issues. Increasingly, local
governments are looking for mechanisms to require new development to pay its own way with
respect to capital facilities.
For decades, local governments have required developers to provide those capital improvements in
the immediate vicinity of their projects. In addition to internal subdivision streets, storm sewers,
and water and wastewater lines, developers are often required to dedicate right-of-way and construct
to full cross-section of any internal or adjacent arterial streets shown on the community’s major
street master plan. Many subdivision regulations require residential developers to dedicate land for
4
parks and schools or pay a fee in lieu of dedication. Large developments are also often required to
prepare traffic impact assessments, and to mitigate negative impacts on nearby intersections and
road segments through building or participating in the cost of signalization, intersection
improvements and acceleration/deceleration lanes. While essential in addressing immediate,
localized improvements, developer exactions are not the right tool to address more long-term,
cumulative, system-wide impacts on the need for capital improvements.
Fees in lieu of dedication of park and school land, as well as water and wastewater connection fees
that served to cover system-wide capital costs, were precursors of impact fees. Impact fees are
designed to do what exactions cannot, which is to recoup some of the costs of expanding off-site
system capacity. With developer exactions under increasing scrutiny by courts employing the U.S.
Supreme Court’s Nolan/Dolan standards of “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality,” and with
shrinking traditional sources of capital funding, it is no surprise that impact fees are one of the
fastest-growing capital funding sources for local governments.
Impact fees, however, rarely cover more than a fraction of the full cost to serve new development.
Part of this is due to revenue credits necessary to acknowledge future contributions by new
development through taxes or rate payments to help retire debt for existing facilities. Another factor
is the need to use conservative assumptions in order to avoid litigation. But perhaps the most
important factor is the general reluctance of public officials to charge the full net cost of growth.
Fodor (1997) observes that impact fees in Oregon, which range from $1,000 to $6,500 per singlefamily
unit, do not come close to covering the full costs of growth. His study of the average cost to
provide new capital facilities to serve a typical single-family unit in Oregon indicates that public
sector capital costs (excluding the cost of on-site facilities typically provided by the developer),
exceed $24,000 per unit, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Capital Cost per New Single-Family House
School Facilities $11,377
Sanitary Sewerage $5,089
Transportation Facilities $4,193
Water System Facilities $2,066
Parks and Recreation Facilities $797
Stormwater Drainage $510
Fire Protection Facilities $470
Total $24,502
Capital Costs of Sprawl
Proponents of smart growth maintain that the capital costs of accommodating low density, leapfrog
development patterns are significantly higher than higher density infill or contiguous development.
Despite a significant body of literature on the subject, however, the concept of sprawl eludes clear
and consistent definition. According to Burchell (1998), it refers to "development that expands in
an unlimited and noncontiguous (leapfrog) way outward from the solidly built-up core of a
metropolitan area." He argues that other distinguishing characteristics are that it occurs at relatively
5
low density, different land use types are spatially segregated from one another, and there is almost
total reliance on the automobile. However, Burchell concedes that many of these characteristics are
difficult to measure in a meaningful way to facilitate quantitative analysis. For example, while the
density of an individual development can be ascertained, data for meaningful measures of density for
entire jurisdictions or large increments of development over time are generally not available.
Similarly, the amount of leapfrog or spatially separated development that has or will occur is almost
impossible to quantify.
Despite these difficulties, several attempts have been made to quantify the differences in capital
costs associated with alternative development patterns. One of the first major studies on the subject
was the seminal The Costs of Sprawl by the Real Estate Research Corporation in 1974. That study
computed estimates of public and private costs for a range of residential development types (from
single-family conventional to high-rise apartment) and hypothetical 10,000 unit community
prototypes (from low-density sprawl to high-density planned). The study found that public
infrastructure costs for the high-density planned alternative were only 53 percent of the low-density
sprawl alternative. Most of the difference in costs is due to the lower proportion of single-family
homes in the high-density planned alternative. A major criticism of the study is that it is not
reasonable to assume that households that would prefer to live in single-family detached housing,
even if they could be convinced to live in attached units, would have the same characteristics of
households that today occupy such units.
Subsequent studies, however, have come to similar conclusions. Frank (1989) reanalyzed and
updated to 1987 costs several earlier studies, corrected for the shortcomings identified in The Costs of
Sprawl, and concluded that costs for roads, water and wastewater were 45 percent less for
"contiguous" development than for "leapfrog, far out" development. Further, while the total public
and private capital cost for typical low density sprawl was determined to be about $35,000 per unit,
he concluded that it would cost almost an additional $15,000 if the development was located ten
miles from the wastewater treatment plant, the central water source, the receiving body for
stormwater and the major employment center. Burchell's (1998) reanalysis of data on alternative
development patterns in Florida compiled by Duncan (1989) found that the average capital cost per
single-family unit in compact and contiguous developments was 37 percent less than in scattered,
linear and satellite developments, primarily due to lower road costs.
In defense of conventional development patterns, Peiser (1989) argues that leapfrog development is
actually more efficient than the likely alternative, which is contiguous low-density development.
While initial costs to serve leapfrog development are higher, they are offset by greater efficiencies
later as the skipped-over parcels are developed at higher density and intensity than the surrounding
early development. In effect, today's leapfrog development creates the conditions for tomorrow's
infill development. Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez (1993) have challenged the idea that infrastructure
costs increase with distance from central facilities, arguing that the economies of scale of large
regional water and wastewater treatment facilities can more than offset the cost of longer lines.
Indeed, the regional wastewater authority in Sacramento County, California was created with the
explicit agreement that participating jurisdictions would not be penalized with higher rates due to
their distance from the regional treatment plant. Finally, at least one researcher found very little
difference in capital costs between "planned" and "unplanned" development in Houston (Peiser
1984).
6
While the argument that compact and contiguous development patterns have lower infrastructure
costs than leapfrog, low-density development on the rural fringe of urban areas has intuitive appeal,
none of the studies performed to date are without flaws and the extent of any such cost advantage is
in dispute.
Conclusion
In the last 30 years or so, Americans have come to realize that community growth is not an
unqualified good. At a minimum, there are often substantial capital costs that must be incurred, and
conventional methods of financing these costs under conditions of rapid growth often lead to higher
taxes and utility rates for existing residents. The fiscal advantages of planned, compact and
contiguous development over conventional, market-driven low-density suburban development have
been suggested but not fully demonstrated.

Officials Call Into Question Finances Of Development
[FINAL Edition]
Tampa Tribune - Tampa, Fla.
Author:
JAN HOLLINGSWORTH
Date:
Dec 18, 2004
Start Page:
14
Section:
PLANT CITY
Text Word Count:
408
Abstract (Document Summary)
There is a price to be paid for each flush of a new toilet, each new trip to the grocery store, each new resident in need of police protection or emergency medical services. And developers should help foot the bill, said City Manager David Sollenberger.
Sollenberger, in a report presented Monday, suggested raising developers' impact fees rather than taxing existing residents and property owners.
The commission approved Sollenberger's request to engage a consultant to study and propose a library impact fee and to discuss the possible implementation of other impact fees with the Chamber of Commerce and its members in the development community.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
County's Growth May Lead To Deficit
[FINAL Edition]
Tampa Tribune - Tampa, Fla.
Author:
KATHY STEELE
Date:
Aug 25, 2003
Start Page:
1
Section:
METRO
Text Word Count:
443
Abstract (Document Summary)
That's the conclusion of a study of the county's growth trends by consultants Tischler & Associates. The report will be presented today at a special meeting of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission.
The study concluded the county will face annual net budget deficits of $43.6 million over the next two decades unless alternative sources of income are found. This is despite projections that revenues from a larger tax base, jobs, and gas and sales taxes will produce slightly more than $3 billion in revenues by 2025. Expenses for the same period will be $4.5 billion, the study determined.
The study comes as Hillsborough commissioners are reviewing the county's future transportation needs and how to fund them
Nonparallel Lines Of Growth And The Means To Pay For It
[FINAL Edition]
Tampa Tribune - Tampa, Fla.
Date:
Sep 7, 2003
Start Page:
2
Section:
COMMENTARY
Text Word Count:
689
Abstract (Document Summary)
The bill for the things the community will need over the next 20 years has been estimated and is too huge for a typical taxpayer to comprehend - tens of billions of dollars. Hillsborough's City- County Planning Commission hired a nationally respected consultant, Paul Tischler, to figure out how much tax revenue is coming in and how much must be spent if the quality of life here is to remain about the same. The report in its sobering entirety is available at the Planning Commission's Internet site (www.plancom.org/).
That is exactly what happened in Hillsborough County's suburbs. The growth has been steady and the pressure has increased slowly as roads, schools, libraries and the like have filled up and in some places overflowed.
By 2025, the number of households on south county's urbanizing shoreline will grow 84 percent. Westchase and Countryway will grow by 55 percent. Valrico's households will increase by 63 percent. The Palm River area and Gibsonton will see a 58 percent boost in households.
The complex problem of analyzing costs, benefits of residential growth
[FINAL Edition]
Tampa Tribune - Tampa, Fla.
Date:
Mar 16, 1999
Start Page:
6
Section:
NATION/WORLD
Text Word Count:
774
Abstract (Document Summary)
Parents know that when the family grows, the family budget must be adjusted. This isn't to say a new baby isn't worth the price, just that the newcomer won't soon be self-sufficient, and the annual costs can be approximated and planned for with a little research.
At public meetings, residents have long been complaining of overcrowded schools, traffic congestion and other symptoms that growth surpasses the ability of public services to keep pace. A multitude of voices are raised in protest, some complaining of high taxes and others of lagging services, some of misplaced priorities and others of mismanagement that they presume is to blame for the failure of last year's tax rate to cover this year's needs.
It is not easy, but it can be done and is being done. In Wilmington and Hanover County, N.C., for example, a consultant was hired to find out the cost to provide today's level of service to new residents. The consultant, Tischler & Associates Inc., found that in 1998 the region's growth would more than pay for itself because no major projects would have to be built, but by 2010 there would be a deficit of more than $10 million. And the debt service payment alone in 2010 for the schools, community college, parks and libraries that would have to be built would be more than the total tax revenues that growth generated.

[QUOTE=Jasonhouse;52354269]Please show a poll or testimony which supports this claim.



WOW, really?!?!? Please, please, please, just link us to one respectable study proving this assertion.

QUOTE]

Dear, one million people signed petitions to place Amendment 4 on the ballot in november... that is better stastistics than any poll.


Most people signed that without knowing what it was. I saw someone gathering signatures and they made it sound like the amendment was something else entirely and a whole group of unsuspecting people signed it. One of them later realized what they signed and called the group and told them they felt mislead. The group didn't care because they had another signature.

When was the last time you went to a commission meeting and voiced your opinion on a proposed project?
I have been going to commision meeting regularly for the last five years.
And as far as the state's education system, it may be fine for mainstream education, but I have a daughter who graduated with an International Baccalaureate diploma and a son in special ed, things aren't so rosy on either end of the spectrum.

I've been to a few and voiced my opinion. What is your point?

A push poll (which is what a petition amounts to, since it only tracks 'yes' votes) and a scientific study are NOT even remotely the same thing... Surely you realize this, so why ignore my question and sidetrack it with this meaningless petition crap?

It can also be said that approximately 19 million in this state did NOT sign the petition.

http://www.northeastpascoconcernedcitizens.info/cost%20of%20services%20fiscal%20analysis%20studies,%20etc/cost_of_growth.pdf

Does Growth Pay for Itself?


Well written article with interesting insights to the debate. Good find. :)

Steve

[QUOTE=Jill Y;52409013]


Most people signed that without knowing what it was. I saw someone gathering signatures and they made it sound like the amendment was something else entirely and a whole group of unsuspecting people signed it. One of them later realized what they signed and called the group and told them they felt mislead. The group didn't care because they had another signature.

You sure you're not confusing that with the competeing petition that Floridians for Smarter Growth tried to get on the ballot?

Officials Call Into Question Finances Of Development
Tampa Tribune - Tampa, Fla.
Author: JAN HOLLINGSWORTH
Date: Dec 18, 2004
Start Page: 14
Section: PLANT CITY

Abstract (Document Summary)
There is a price to be paid for each flush of a new toilet, each new trip to the grocery store, each new resident in need of police protection or emergency medical services. And developers should help foot the bill, said City Manager David Sollenberger. Sollenberger, in a report presented Monday, suggested raising developers' impact fees rather than taxing existing residents and property owners. The commission approved Sollenberger's request to engage a consultant to study and propose a library impact fee and to discuss the possible implementation of other impact fees with the Chamber of Commerce and its members in the development community. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.


County's Growth May Lead To Deficit
Tampa Tribune - Tampa, Fla.
Author: KATHY STEELE
Date: Aug 25, 2003
Section: METRO

Abstract (Document Summary)
That's the conclusion of a study of the county's growth trends by consultants Tischler & Associates. The report will be presented today at a special meeting of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission.

The study concluded the county will face annual net budget deficits of $43.6 million over the next two decades unless alternative sources of income are found. This is despite projections that revenues from a larger tax base, jobs, and gas and sales taxes will produce slightly more than $3 billion in revenues by 2025. Expenses for the same period will be $4.5 billion, the study determined.The study comes as Hillsborough commissioners are reviewing the county's future transportation needs and how to fund them
Lines Of Growth And The Means To Pay For It
Tampa Tribune - Tampa, Fla.
Date: Sep 7, 2003
Start Page: 2
Section: COMMENTARY

The bill for the things the community will need over the next 20 years has been estimated and is too huge for a typical taxpayer to comprehend - tens of billions of dollars. Hillsborough's City- County Planning Commission hired a nationally respected consultant, Paul Tischler, to figure out how much tax revenue is coming in and how much must be spent if the quality of life here is to remain about the same. The report in its sobering entirety is available at the Planning Commission's Internet site (www.plancom.org/).
That is exactly what happened in Hillsborough County's suburbs. The growth has been steady and the pressure has increased slowly as roads, schools, libraries and the like have filled up and in some places overflowed. By 2025, the number of households on south county's urbanizing shoreline will grow 84 percent. Westchase and Countryway will grow by 55 percent. Valrico's households will increase by 63 percent. The Palm River area and Gibsonton will see a 58 percent boost in households.


The complex problem of analyzing costs, benefits of residential growth
Tampa Tribune - Tampa, Fla.
Date: Mar 16, 1999
Start Page:6
Section: NATION/WORLD

Abstract (Document Summary)
Parents know that when the family grows, the family budget must be adjusted. This isn't to say a new baby isn't worth the price, just that the newcomer won't soon be self-sufficient, and the annual costs can be approximated and planned for with a little research.

At public meetings, residents have long been complaining of overcrowded schools, traffic congestion and other symptoms that growth surpasses the ability of public services to keep pace. A multitude of voices are raised in protest, some complaining of high taxes and others of lagging services, some of misplaced priorities and others of mismanagement that they presume is to blame for the failure of last year's tax rate to cover this year's needs. It is not easy, but it can be done and is being done. In Wilmington and Hanover County, N.C., for example, a consultant was hired to find out the cost to provide today's level of service to new residents. The consultant, Tischler & Associates Inc., found that in 1998 the region's growth would more than pay for itself because no major projects would have to be built, but by 2010 there would be a deficit of more than $10 million. And the debt service payment alone in 2010 for the schools, community college, parks and libraries that would have to be built would be more than the total tax revenues that growth generated.

Interesting experpts, I cleaned them up a bit for posting.

Steve

[QUOTE=randommichael;52442467]

You sure you're not confusing that with the competeing petition that Floridians for Smarter Growth tried to get on the ballot?

Overall I think most people sign these petitions without fully understanding them. They are written complexly, for good reason, but the people gathering signatures do their best to summarize them in 2-5 seconds for people walking by.

Steve

This is so silly. The current process has public input does it not? The last time there was any project that was even discussed, the public had the option to speak to the council and give their opinion.

The point is, that people get three minutes in front of a microphone, developers and their representatives are rarely restricted to the amount of thime they are alloted to make their case in front of commissioners.

It is hardly a level playing field.

Originally Posted by randommichael
This is so silly. The current process has public input does it not? The last time there was any project that was even discussed, the public had the option to speak to the council and give their opinion.
Originally Posted by Jill Y
The point is, that people get three minutes in front of a microphone, developers and their representatives are rarely restricted to the amount of thime they are alloted to make their case in front of commissioners.

It is hardly a level playing field.

Both valid points. Might there be a different way to handle this issue? Hometown Democracy is one, might there be others?

Jill: Expound how Hometown Democracy solves this issue

Randommichael: Propose ways of solving this imbalance that is either present, or felt to be so.

Steve

With Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4, the growth management process remains the same. Public hearings are held, developers make their pitch, people get to speak and commissioners get to vote.
If a local government approves a land use change and their constituents agree they have the option to pass it on referendum, if their constituents don't agree, they have the option to vote the proposed amendment down and really be heard.

[QUOTE=randommichael;52442467]

You sure you're not confusing that with the competeing petition that Floridians for Smarter Growth tried to get on the ballot?

No, I'm sure it was this particular petition. My friend still had a form given to him by the person collecting signatures.

Both valid points. Might there be a different way to handle this issue? Hometown Democracy is one, might there be others?

Jill: Expound how Hometown Democracy solves this issue

Randommichael: Propose ways of solving this imbalance that is either present, or felt to be so.

Steve

I do not feel there is an imbalance at all. The public has ample opportunity to speak at each hearing.

With Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4, the growth management process remains the same. Public hearings are held, developers make their pitch, people get to speak and commissioners get to vote.
If a local government approves a land use change and their constituents agree they have the option to pass it on referendum, if their constituents don't agree, they have the option to vote the proposed amendment down and really be heard.

Playing the Devils advocate, this seems to add another layer of bureaucracy to the government and makes the commissioners (who supposedly represent the people) irrelevant. Why not simply give more time for public input rather than having a referendum for the proposal? Remember at the same time, we live in a representative republic, not a mass democracy. Would it not be good to looks at ways of holding the commissioners more accountable, or changing zoning laws? What about the costs of having referendums? Who pays for those, does it have to wait for the regularly scheduled voting periods?

I do not feel there is an imbalance at all. The public has ample opportunity to speak at each hearing.

Assuming that there is an imbalance though, what could be changed to fix that? Even if there is not an imbalance, enough people must perceive there to be one that this measure has gotten this far.

Regarding the takings aspect. If a current land use has little to no economic value as is, but does have intrinsic value in a different category, and that category does not quantitatively diminish the value of neighboring properties, you are in essence taking from the property owner by not allowing him/her to make the most economic potential from the property. Now we can get into all sorts of silly side arguments about "well what if he wants to build a nuclear power plant," type things that are not logical.

Logically if you are sitting on a piece of rural land that is in an area that is developing (say Pasco and Hernando counties) and its worth $X per acre as is, but would be worth $4X if redeveloped. If there are not appreciable detrimental impacts to surrounding properties, then stopping a change would constitute a taking. Land use rights are pretty well established in this country, its kind of one of the founding principles, making maximum use of your property rights.

Hometown democracy will do two things, stymie redevelopment of existing urban areas, and pour a ton of money into land use attorney's pockets for the next ten years until large parts of the amendment are declared unconstitutional. Like I said, I enjoy watching stupid people make bad decisions.

And I agree with Michael, there is no imbalance at all. There are plenty of opportunities to influence these changes in the current system. Unfortunately too often those who lose the argument can't let it go and understand that not everyone thinks their way and try to force their positions on everyone else. Its a vocal minority trying to force extremely bad public policy on the rest. Florida has been since its beginning a growth state. If you enjoy a slower pace and less change and development, I recommend Alabama, Mississippi, or southern Georgia.

The United States is not a democracy, but a representative republic. We elect people to represent us and do the job of governing. A country this size, hell a city with over a thousand people ought not try to run every decision through every voter. Elected officials and their staffs have significantly more information at their fingertips to make decisions, than the average "concerned citizen". The amendment will only insure that the "no's" will always win, simply because they turn out at the ballot box in greater numbers than the "yes's" because the "yes's" don't want to have to be bothered running something they elected a government to do in the first place.

[QUOTE=Jill Y;52443821]

No, I'm sure it was this particular petition. My friend still had a form given to him by the person collecting signatures.

Blame the person gathering the signatures, not the petition.

[QUOTE=randommichael;52446737]

Blame the person gathering the signatures, not the petition.

I don't recall blaming the petition.

Regarding the takings aspect. If a current land use has little to no economic value as is, but does have intrinsic value in a different category, and that category does not quantitatively diminish the value of neighboring properties, you are in essence taking from the property owner by not allowing him/her to make the most economic potential from the property. Now we can get into all sorts of silly side arguments about "well what if he wants to build a nuclear power plant," type things that are not logical.

Logically if you are sitting on a piece of rural land that is in an area that is developing (say Pasco and Hernando counties) and its worth $X per acre as is, but would be worth $4X if redeveloped. If there are not appreciable detrimental impacts to surrounding properties, then stopping a change would constitute a taking. Land use rights are pretty well established in this country, its kind of one of the founding principles, making maximum use of your property rights.

Hometown democracy will do two things, stymie redevelopment of existing urban areas, and pour a ton of money into land use attorney's pockets for the next ten years until large parts of the amendment are declared unconstitutional. Like I said, I enjoy watching stupid people make bad decisions.

No one is entitled to highest and best use.
Even under a Burt Harris claim a government has to have entitled something and then taken it away for the claim to be valid. And the person suing under Burt Harris would have had to have had an investment backed expectation to use the property with its orginal land use. You can't sue for an entitlement you haven't been granted yet.
Land use changes are requests for additional entitlements and local government have it within their jurisdiction to deny them.
Please research takings. In order for a local government to be accused of a taking, a property owner has to prove that all economically viable use of the land has been removed by the govermental regulation.
Not some, all. Not what would make them the most money - it isn't a local governments job to make sure that developers make a profit, their job is to make sure that the decisions they make are in the best interest of their existing residents.

If you enjoy a slower pace and less change and development, I recommend Alabama, Mississippi, or southern Georgia.

The United States is not a democracy, but a representative republic. .

Sorry, by that logic I can also say to you if you want a big city, move to Chicago or New York.

People vote on bond issues and tax issues. Changes in land use and density affect our property taxes, so we should be able to vote those issues as well.

Sorry, by that logic I can also say to you if you want a big city, move to Chicago or New York.

I don't understand what point you were trying to make there...

People are leaving Tampa because Tampa doesn't offer the life style they want. Not because of the size of the city or development problems.

If we wanna keep people in Tampa we need to have different lifestyle choices instead of just suburban. Its got nothing to do with the system, It has everything to do with letting our politicians know that Tampa Bay just simply does not have what we want. Maybe then they would hire some competent planners who understand this and we will get what we want. We can't change it with this amendment. We can change it by letting our planners know they are doing a shitty job

Like I've said before, my parents successfully fought several developments from being built in our rural community. All it takes is active citizens. THINK about all of the major improvements that have been blocked by residents as 275 said.
Our civic association was even able to block a road from being widened for 10 years!!!!!!!!!

I don't think development should be punished because of the inability of the citizens to be involved in a system that they were intended to be involved in in the first place. And ONE Angry Neighbor does not count as community activism, that counts as individual activism. Obviously the rest of the community didn't disagree with whatever was being done to their neighborhood.

And here's a thought, if your elected representatives aren't representing your ideas, perhaps you should vote and campaign for someone else. I did, I even campaigned against one of my dads friends because, I didn't believe in the things he believed in. And guess what... HE LOST!

Not the developers fault people didn't look into their politician like you are supposed to not just voting blindly for a party.

I was responding to this quote by DShenise: "If you enjoy a slower pace and less change and development, I recommend Alabama, Mississippi, or southern Georgia. "

And I am happy your parents successfully fought off an improper development in their neighborhood, not everyone is so successful.

not everyone is so successful.

Sorry but I beg to differ... If you look at numerous articles on this forum you'd see how much New Tampa fought a bridge and a road that would connect them with Lutz.
Look at Lutz who ALSO didn't want it. Look at Lutz in general who fights everything. Its the PEOPLE not the system in this case.
The residents of Tampa have killed more good things for this city and metro than anywhere else I've ever heard.

I've complained a lot about the people killing good projects. Imagine all the bad projects that had to have been killed too ya know :P

Also, you can campaign and vote for people who say they will reinstate impact fees, or vote against them if they don't
That is the beauty of our system. Votes mean more to politicians than emails.

Sorry but I beg to differ... If you look at numerous articles on this forum you'd see how much New Tampa fought a bridge and a road that would connect them with Lutz.
Look at Lutz who ALSO didn't want it. Look at Lutz in general who fights everything. Its the PEOPLE not the system in this case.
The residents of Tampa have killed more good things for this city and metro than anywhere else I've ever heard.

I've complained a lot about the people killing good projects. Imagine all the bad projects that had to have been killed too ya know :P

Also, you can campaign and vote for people who say they will reinstate impact fees, or vote against them if they don't
That is the beauty of our system. Votes mean more to politicians than emails.

Not every county has a charter form or government.
Not every project would be subjec tto a vote.
You can't assume that every land use change approved by local governments would be voted down in an election.

OK, so at this point Jbrisco has pointed out three groups (New Tampa, Lutz, and Oldsmar) in Hillsborough County (two projects, a road and a development) that were not developed due to community members taking the appropriate actions with their representatives. This proves, in Hillsborough county at least, that it is certainly possible to get projects that are not desired by the people blocked through the current channels and regulations.

So the questions still stands, why change the current regulations?

This of course assumes that people work within the current regulations, which Jill has pointed out can be difficult and at times one sided.


Pro Amendment 4:
DShenise makes a very compelling argument for the issues that come into play with personal property laws and development:
Regarding the takings aspect. If a current land use has little to no economic value as is, but does have intrinsic value in a different category, and that category does not quantitatively diminish the value of neighboring properties, you are in essence taking from the property owner by not allowing him/her to make the most economic potential from the property. Now we can get into all sorts of silly side arguments about "well what if he wants to build a nuclear power plant," type things that are not logical.

Logically if you are sitting on a piece of rural land that is in an area that is developing (say Pasco and Hernando counties) and its worth $X per acre as is, but would be worth $4X if redeveloped. If there are not appreciable detrimental impacts to surrounding properties, then stopping a change would constitute a taking. Land use rights are pretty well established in this country, its kind of one of the founding principles, making maximum use of your property rights.

This is a very valid point that needs to be addressed in full. Taking anything with tangible or intangible value without compensation of some sort is unconstitutional in the most grievous of senses. How does the amendment address this very important issue?

Pro Amendment 4: What projects would be expempt from this new amendment and what projects would require a referendum? How are they differentiated?



Con Amendment 4:
Jill states:
People vote on bond issues and tax issues. Changes in land use and density affect our property taxes, so we should be able to vote those issues as well.
This is a good point. If we vote on these other issues that affect taxes, why not extend it to issues that affect property taxes?





Reflection on the matter at hand:
As others and myself have pointed out, we live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy, this should be taken into consideration when we are proposing new laws, rules, regulations, and amendments to our constitution. The framers of our country explicitly spoke of the dangers of mass democracy and "mob rule" as the whims of one group can wreck a nation - or state for that matter. It may be briefly as regulations and laws can be changed or repealed, but non the less it can be dangerous.

I reiterate:
No one is entitled to highest and best use.
Even under a Burt Harris claim a government has to have entitled something and then taken it away for the claim to be valid. And the person suing under Burt Harris would have had to have had an investment backed expectation to use the property with its orginal land use. You can't sue for an entitlement you haven't been granted yet.
Land use changes are requests for additional entitlements and local government have it within their jurisdiction to deny them.
Please research takings. In order for a local government to be accused of a taking, a property owner has to prove that all economically viable use of the land has been removed by the govermental regulation.
Not some, all. Not what would make them the most money - it isn't a local governments job to make sure that developers make a profit, their job is to make sure that the decisions they make are in the best interest of their existing residents.
I'm not sure you understand the difference between communities with charter forms of government and those without.
The examples given by DSheinise could have violated the county charter or the Lutz Community Plan
http://www.hccommunityplanning.com/hccbpp_Lutz/

As far as which projects weould be subject to Amendment 4, it would be those requiring a land use change to the comprehensive plan.
Variances and zoining changes do not fall under the scope of the amendment and would not be subject to a vote.

[/QUOTE]Reflection on the matter at hand:
As others and myself have pointed out, we live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy, this should be taken into consideration when we are proposing new laws, rules, regulations, and amendments to our constitution. The framers of our country explicitly spoke of the dangers of mass democracy and "mob rule" as the whims of one group can wreck a nation - or state for that matter. It may be briefly as regulations and laws can be changed or repealed, but non the less it can be dangerous.[/QUOTE]

Then why do we vote on new taxes and bond issues... should we allow our commissioners to decide how much to tax us just because we elected them?

Reflection on the matter at hand:
As others and myself have pointed out, we live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy, this should be taken into consideration when we are proposing new laws, rules, regulations, and amendments to our constitution. The framers of our country explicitly spoke of the dangers of mass democracy and "mob rule" as the whims of one group can wreck a nation - or state for that matter. It may be briefly as regulations and laws can be changed or repealed, but non the less it can be dangerous.

Then why do we vote on new taxes and bond issues... should we allow our commissioners to decide how much to tax us just because we elected them?

I am not trying to get into this debate, just help it get moved along in a civil manner - nor have I given my feelings or how I will vote on the issue. With that said, yes we do elect our representatives and they do tax us without the people directly voting (for most taxes anyway). Taxation with representation. Consider gas taxes, use taxes, etc. these are not voted by the people in referendums, they are decided by our elected officials, only very few taxes are actually decided by referendum. It is not my opinion that we live in a Republic and not a Democracy, it is a fact.

Steve

We can argue that one.. Depends on how polls are worded, who is asked the question, how many people are polled -etc., etc.

No, we can't argue that one, because there's nothing to argue... Petitions prove nothing, other than the fact that if you ask enough people, eventually you'll find a few who are willing to sign their name onto just about anything... This isn't a controversial concept here.


Then why do we vote on new taxes and bond issues... should we allow our commissioners to decide how much to tax us just because we elected them?
If you don't know this, try retaking 8th grade civics class, and get back to us when you're up to speed.

http://www.apalachtimes.com/articles/florida-7683-growth-officials.html

I would hardly call the perspective of quasi-rural Apalachicola's residents relevant to the state's urban areas, which is where something like 80%+ of its residents live.


I'll say it again, this amendment isn't getting 60% of the vote, so there's no reason to get in a huff over it. In fact, there's already no reason to spend another dime chasing this boondoggle of an idea. It won't pass, so let it die and come up with a solution that actually addresses the problem, instead of blindly punishing everyone, just in case.

I am not trying to get into this debate, just help it get moved along in a civil manner - nor have I given my feelings or how I will vote on the issue. With that said, yes we do elect our representatives and they do tax us without the people directly voting (for most taxes anyway). Taxation with representation. Consider gas taxes, use taxes, etc. these are not voted by the people in referendums, they are decided by our elected officials, only very few taxes are actually decided by referendum. It is not my opinion that we live in a Republic and not a Democracy, it is a fact.

Steve

Then let me ask you why we vote on anything except who we want to represent us?

No, we can't argue that one, because there's nothing to argue... Petitions prove nothing, other than the fact that if you ask enough people, eventually you'll find a few who are willing to sign their name onto just about anything... This isn't a controversial concept here.


If you don't know this, try retaking 8th grade civics class, and get back to us when you're up to speed.

No need to get snide, unless that's the only way you know to make an impression.

Polls can be manipilated by how the questions are phrased and who is polled.

A petition proved one thing in this case, enough people believed that the growth management system needs to be changed that there is now an amendment to our state constitution

The framers of our country explicitly spoke of the dangers of mass democracy and "mob rule" as the whims of one group can wreck a nation - or state for that matter.

They also spoke of the dangers of the Federal Reserve, Importance of Hemp (or as Harry Anslinger called it "Marijuana"), giving up liberties, and the dangers of RELIGION in government. These seem to have all fallen on def ears


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."


"Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction."

"Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see."

And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.... error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.... I deem the essential principles of our government.... Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; ... freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
- Thomas Jefferson (all the above)

"We shall, by and by, want a world of hemp more for our own consumption."
- John Adams


"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere."
- George Washington

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Ben Franklin

"An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government."
- James Madison

No one apparently listens to the fathers of everything we have today.

BUT THE MAIN THING THEY STRESSED WAS EDUCATION ON WHATS GOING ON IN YOUR GOVERNMENT. Thats YOUR duty. NOT the government.

Sorry but I beg to differ... If you look at numerous articles on this forum you'd see how much New Tampa fought a bridge and a road that would connect them with Lutz.
Look at Lutz who ALSO didn't want it. Look at Lutz in general who fights everything. Its the PEOPLE not the system in this case.
The residents of Tampa have killed more good things for this city and metro than anywhere else I've ever heard.

I've complained a lot about the people killing good projects. Imagine all the bad projects that had to have been killed too ya know :P

Also, you can campaign and vote for people who say they will reinstate impact fees, or vote against them if they don't
That is the beauty of our system. Votes mean more to politicians than emails.
Exactly thats because the majority of those residents go and voice their opinion. If you believe that evil developers theory look how many large subdivisions were built in either of those areas, not many... I was actually happy to see somewhat dense developments for that area(townhouses, mixed use developments). Guess what Jill that is what allows for healthy growth but doesn't isn't a suburban wasteland. As Jbrisco said plenty of good projects were killed and the ones that effect more than just one area are what I think is bad but some bad projects were killed which is good.

There are supposed to be rules to keep development from financially impacting existing residents (no compensation for loss of quality of life,though) and they are called impact fees and concurrency.

Elected officials pass and repeal impact fees at random, but the costs of development don't change, roads, schools, sewer, water (which we are running out of - another extension of water restructions announced yesterday), libraries, parks, then the cost to maintain and replace the infrastructure as it ages.
Fighting for impact fees is good and is part of the reason we had growth without upgrading infrastructure. You must have an anti-growth mentality because you do know either way you pay for improvement or creation of infrastructure in your city, county, or the state. Maybe its just me but I'd be happy to get to see my tax dollars at work locally so for example I could feel proud my kid gets to go to a new school close to home or I get a nice new road with smooth flowing traffic while across the county they are stuck in traffic on a road 30 years behind. Loss of quality of life? Maybe by increased traffic because of those who would restrict upgrades of infrastructure. Growth almost always has a positive increase in quality of life in fact take Pasco County as an example.

I did not hear many people complaining about development as I heard people praising it! I would hear all the time people happy because now they have a store a half mile away instead of 5 miles, a new school that is also closer, improved roads allowing for easy access, and people bragging how Pasco was becoming a better place.

No, ponzi is accurate... when local governments rely on initial increased tax base to make up for budget deficits and compounding it's responsibility to supply police, fire service, etc., etc., when they approve an incompatible development and sell an existing neighborhood down the river for an intersection improvement, that's a pretty good example of pozni.
What's your definition?
Please give an example of this I cannot think of any place where a neighborhood was sold for an intersection improvement so please make that a good example.

Sorry, by that logic I can also say to you if you want a big city, move to Chicago or New York.

People vote on bond issues and tax issues. Changes in land use and density affect our property taxes, so we should be able to vote those issues as well.
Yea but Chicago and New York are established cities so more growth would not change that. Tampa Bay on the other hand is a growing city that is much less established however its also the 2nd most populated area in Florida and its up there with populated areas of the south so not expecting growth is foolish. However Mississippi and Alabama do not have large population growth and not many population centers so those states seem to fit your anti-growth way of thinking better. I have a question for you though.. Do you live in a subdivision and what year was your residence built?

Sorry JBrisco....
I didn't post that.

Polls, done by a reputable polling firm generally are very accurate reflections of public sentiment. I disagree with Jason on this one. It'll probably pass by live 60%. Like I've said, letting people make bad choices is important. It separates the wheat from the chaff. This will only accomplish making redeveloped more difficult, steal from property owners the economic value of their properties, and further the state down a road towards also ran status.

Back in grad school I had a class taught by Gov. Askew, frequently I lamented why doesn't Florida have "X" or "Y" opportunity. His general response was that the state was never set up for "big" anything. That unless you were in commodities or medicine, the state had very limited opportunities for actual career growth. I kind of fought that line of thinking for about ten years, then I finally gave up the fight and bailed for better opportunities. The state is filled with those unwilling or scared of change, to those wanting more opportunities, leave. The pay is way better, the career options stunning and generally the people have a real lust for life and don't want to just settle. Hometown Democracy will only exacerbate a bad situation, locking in outdated land uses. It will hold back development and growth. Of my group of say 100 acquaintances in undergrad and grad school (a group of architects, political sciences, mathematics and physics), I think 2 are left.

And its not because too much changed in the past fifteen years, its because not enough did.

Exactly thats because the majority of those residents go and voice their opinion. If you believe that evil developers theory look how many large subdivisions were built in either of those areas, not many...

Fighting for impact fees is good and is part of the reason we had growth without upgrading infrastructure.
Growth almost always has a positive increase in quality of life in fact take Pasco County as an example.

I did not hear many people complaining about development as I heard people praising it! I would hear all the time people happy because now they have a store a half mile away instead of 5 miles, a new school that is also closer, improved roads allowing for easy access, and people bragging how Pasco was becoming a better place.


Please give an example of this I cannot think of any place where a neighborhood was sold for an intersection improvement so please make that a good example.


Do you live in a subdivision and what year was your residence built?

Because they (communities like Lutz)have a charter form of government and a community plan and the subdivisond were probably prohibited in the plan.

I live in Pasco County, it is the poster child for poor planning. Whether or not it is a better place depends on who you ask.

I am definitely for impact fees on development.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that an entire neighborhood was lost to an intersection. In Pasco, several long time residents lost their homes to the widening of Perrine Ranch Road when the ranch was subdivided and the road couldn't handle the volume. If you had lived there for years and had no desire to move, being compensated for having to do so is little consolation.

No I do not live in a subdivision. I do not care to live in a subdivision and I don't need a Wal-Greens and a CVS every other block or a Publix every mile and a half.
The point is, if you want to live in a city, good for you, but not everybody does.

Polls, done by a reputable polling firm generally are very accurate reflections of public sentiment. I disagree with Jason on this one. It'll probably pass by live 60%. Like I've said, letting people make bad choices is important. It separates the wheat from the chaff. This will only accomplish making redeveloped more difficult, steal from property owners the economic value of their properties, and further the state down a road towards also ran status.

Back in grad school I had a class taught by Gov. Askew, frequently I lamented why doesn't Florida have "X" or "Y" opportunity. His general response was that the state was never set up for "big" anything. That unless you were in commodities or medicine, the state had very limited opportunities for actual career growth. I kind of fought that line of thinking for about ten years, then I finally gave up the fight and bailed for better opportunities. The state is filled with those unwilling or scared of change, to those wanting more opportunities, leave. The pay is way better, the career options stunning and generally the people have a real lust for life and don't want to just settle. Hometown Democracy will only exacerbate a bad situation, locking in outdated land uses. It will hold back development and growth. Of my group of say 100 acquaintances in undergrad and grad school (a group of architects, political sciences, mathematics and physics), I think 2 are left.

And its not because too much changed in the past fifteen years, its because not enough did.

I agree we need more economic diversity, we need to draw high-tech and high-paying jobs. What we don't need to do is keep relying on the residential construction industry to drive our economy.

Because they (communities like Lutz)have a charter form of government and a community plan and the subdivisond were probably prohibited in the plan.

I live in Pasco County, it is the poster child for poor planning. Whether or not it is a better place depends on who you ask.

I am definitely for impact fees on development.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that an entire neighborhood was lost to an intersection. In Pasco, several long time residents lost their homes to the widening of Perrine Ranch Road when the ranch was subdivided and the road couldn't handle the volume. If you had lived there for years and had no desire to move, being compensated for having to do so is little consolation.

No I do not live in a subdivision. I do not care to live in a subdivision and I don't need a Wal-Greens and a CVS every other block or a Publix every mile and a half.
The point is, if you want to live in a city, good for you, but not everybody does.
You are pretty much right that Pasco is very poorly planned and I suppose that is why you have such an opposition to growth. I hate the poor planning of North Pinellas county but that is where me and you see things differently I see the lack of upgraded infrastructure as the cause and I don't oppose growth.

Pasco County is the poster child of poor planning and the whole "build it and they will come" mentality and I can't disagree with why so many in Pasco mistrust our commission. But at the same time, almost every commissioner that seats there today came to power with the message of growth and development for their district. Cox did, Schrader did, Hildebrand did, and so on. If you don't like what you see, vote them out. All of them have their pros and cons and Michael Cox in my opinion has done a fairly decent job representing me, but there is things that I can disagree with him. And right now, I think the commission is realizing that they may be approving too many developments.

You are pretty much right that Pasco is very poorly planned and I suppose that is why you have such an opposition to growth. I hate the poor planning of North Pinellas county but that is where me and you see things differently I see the lack of upgraded infrastructure as the cause and I don't oppose growth.

I don't oppose all growth either, I just think it needs to be planned for (ie - hey presto, if you have a comprehensive PLAN follow it and don't amend it just beccause someone asks - there should be demonstated need).

If you do grow, make sure that the infrastucture is contiguous and is paid for by the people who are going to make the money on the development, not existing residents.

Pasco County is the poster child of poor planning and the whole "build it and they will come" mentality and I can't disagree with why so many in Pasco mistrust our commission. But at the same time, almost every commissioner that seats there today came to power with the message of growth and development for their district. Cox did, Schrader did, Hildebrand did, and so on. If you don't like what you see, vote them out. All of them have their pros and cons and Michael Cox in my opinion has done a fairly decent job representing me, but there is things that I can disagree with him. And right now, I think the commission is realizing that they may be approving too many developments.

Michael has been on the commission for 4 years and is up for re-election.

Ann has been on the commission since 1984 and is running again for her seventh term in office and represents a highly developed section of the county. .

Ted is serving his fourth term and his faimily has made an awful lot of money on development.

Pat ran for the first time to prevent either an incinerator or a gas pipeline, can't remember which. She is up for reelection.

Pasco's east side has vastly different issues than the west side.

I don't oppose all growth either, I just think it needs to be planned for (ie - hey presto, if you have a comprehensive PLAN follow it and don't amend it just beccause someone asks - there should be demonstated need).

If you do grow, make sure that the infrastructure is contiguous and is paid for by the people who are going to make the money on the development, not existing residents.
We'll see now we are getting clearer about this. Growth does need to be planned but not only that but planned well! Amending a plan is not a problem since no plan is 100% full proof but its just if its the right reason to amend it. I agree that if there is growth the proper infrastructure need to be built. However I say only a certain percent should be covered by the developers since nobody would build anything if they had to pay for entire infrastructure projects. Increased density allows a win/win for both residents and developers as less infrastructure needs to be upgraded, less land is used and the developers still make money. But see there are many residents who totally oppose growth and will shoot down anything like the Lutz example, that is what we cannot have.

Pasco's east side has vastly different issues than the west side.
That is very true.. The east side is the mess of poor planning and the west is the more rural area which is starting on the trend of poor planning.

However I say only a certain percent should be covered by the developers since nobody would build anything if they had to pay for entire infrastructure projects. Increased density allows a win/win for both residents and developers as less infrastructure needs to be upgraded, less land is used and the developers still make money. But see there are many residents who totally oppose growth and will shoot down anything like the Lutz example, that is what we cannot have.

If existing residents are going to have to foot the bill in any way for development they should have the right to vote on it.

If so many people oppose growth, and our elected officials are supposed to represent us, how come we have had so much of it in inappropriate places?

If existing residents are going to have to foot the bill in any way for development they should have the right to vote on it.

If so many people oppose growth, and our elected officials are supposed to represent us, how come we have had so much of it in inappropriate places?
That is because I've found in general people don't oppose growth except when its their own immediate area. That is the close minded mentality of only caring what goes on and effects them not the greater good I guess you can say. So the elected officials are representing the people because the majority of people don't care unless its right by them. That is why Lutz and Odessa have been successful because the whole community is behind each other.

So, either people oppose growth, or they don't, which is it?

Yes I just said they really oppose it when it immediately effects them, otherwise they might not always care. Is that a fact? No but it is a reasonable explanation as to why certain areas get developments approved. Thats a flaw to Hometown Democracy, why would I give a damn about a development on the other side of the city or county I rarely go to? At the same time what if I didn't care if a certain part of town got a development they needed because according to you it would increase my taxes? So I could just vote against it and it wouldn't make any difference to me but it would to that part of town. Just remember your neighborhood wouldn't be the only one voting it could be the entire city or county voting on something that only will effect your neighborhood.

T Rowe Price is an example of growth in Pasco that I support..
It's location off SR 54 makes sense, I can live with destroying 1/4 acre of wetlands more than I can Cypress Creek Town Center which is endangering the headwaters of the Hillsborough River which supplies drinking water for the City of Tampa or Ridge Road extension which will go through the Serenova Perserve. The Serenova was setaside as mitigation for the Suncoast Parkway.
None of those places directly impacts me.

T Rowe Price is an example of growth in Pasco that I support..
Wow... You just crushed your entire reasoning for supporting this boondoggle of a law, by proving that the typical everyday voter (like you) is as incompetent on these issues as the people you want to supercede. Sorry, but you just got suckered Jill, bigtime.


You're in here howling away that we need 'hometown democracy' to stop developers and their sycophants in local government from bulldozing the countryside and scamming taxpayers...

And then you proudly endorse the single biggest example of developers and complicit govt leaders scamming taxpayers to occur in Pasco County in years? (much worse than CCTC)...

Umm, you DO realize that for T Rowe Price to locate there, the county's leadership had to sign off on breaking procedural rule after rule designed to protect the public from getting fleeced, right? You do realize that the DRI for that development had lasped, and was renewed without following the appropriate process with the Florida Department of Community Affairs, right? You do realize that T Rowe Price is scamming taxpayers for a cool $30 MILLION in taxpayer handouts, right? You do realize that it will cost Pasco County millions of dollars on top of that to widen roads leading to the Suncoast Parkway from the T Rowe Price site, right? (it's contractually part of the deal, else T Rowe Price wouldn't move.)

T Rowe Price won't pay for the impact of their own development, YOU will. T Rowe Price won't be paying their property taxes, YOU will. And when T Rowe Price's business plans change in a few years and they back out of their end of the deal, they won't be the ones left holding the bill, YOU will.

T Rowe Price is an example of growth in Pasco that I support..
It's location off SR 54 makes sense, I can live with destroying 1/4 acre of wetlands more than I can Cypress Creek Town Center which is endangering the headwaters of the Hillsborough River which supplies drinking water for the City of Tampa or Ridge Road extension which will go through the Serenova Perserve. The Serenova was setaside as mitigation for the Suncoast Parkway.
None of those places directly impacts me.
You mean you support a company buying a huge tract of land and sitting on it because thats basically what they have been doing. Sure they "promise" jobs and to build offices but isn't that the same with the half built subdivisions you are against? Not to mention the millions the state gave that company to buy that land and promise to build something? Didn't you go to the meetings to learn about that? You are actually going to be paying for that development exactly what you are against lol I'm sorry but that is a fail on your part. The Ridge Rd extension is vital to preventing the poor planning we were just talking about a few posts ago, having an alternate route? The Ridge Rd extension would do more than the T Rowe plan and the cost is similar if not way less right?

Jill quick question, how would you had voted for the tourism tax today?

^I would have voted no, I can tell you that much.

^I would have voted no, I can tell you that much.
Why's that? We're one of the cheapest county for our tourism tax and are even behind Hernando who have 3%.

Because what it was going to had next to nothing to do with tourism, and there are better things to spend 8 figures on than sports fields.

I have to say I agree with Jason on this one. No matter how you spin it, I just can't see Pasco becoming a hotbed of sports activity.
Wishing won't make it so no matter how much Mariano wants it.
And as far as T Rowe is concerned, I would rather my tax dollars go to support a potential employer in this county than another ubiquitous subdivision or super Wal_Mart.
Pasco County already has 572,000 dwelling units entitled, enough to keep builders preoccupied for the next 30 years or so.

Which is funny Jason because now they're saying that they have enough money from impact fees and and bond proceeds and don't need to spend the tourism money they originally planned to do. And Jill, you would use TOURISM money to help a PRIVATE company?

NO.

Which is funny Jason because now they're saying that they have enough money from impact fees and and bond proceeds and don't need to spend the tourism money they originally planned to do. And Jill, you would use TOURISM money to help a PRIVATE company?
That's when you know it's a buddy/buddy deal... When they magically, somehow, some way, find the money for something dubious, no matter what.

But my question is, if they're so resourceful when chasing their personal agenda, why can't they apply that to their actual job of being community leaders?

And as far as T Rowe is concerned, I would rather my tax dollars go to support a potential employer in this county than another ubiquitous subdivision or super Wal_Mart.
Pasco County already has 572,000 dwelling units entitled, enough to keep builders preoccupied for the next 30 years or so.
So in other words, bad and even corrupt government is a-ok in your book, just so long as it suits your ideology?

Thank you for exemplifying why I greatly prefer we reform government so that the actual qualified professionals are the ones making the planning decisions. As soon as personal politics enters into the picture, we're all screwed.


Here's a thought... Instead of this crackpot proposal, voters should set it up so that they vote on both their neighborhood and the county's overall long range development plan every 8-10 years, with the county commissioners being locked out of case by case planning and zoning changes. The county planning department should handle such issues in an objective process approved by the voters, with the contentious cases going in front of a non-partisan citizens review board (whose pool of participants would come from neighborhood and homeowners associations across the county, whose boards sign up to be in the pool)

Take these decisions away from politicians, and suddenly developers don't have anyone to buy off to get their way. They'll be stuck dealing with objective professionals obligated to follow strict guidelines approved by voters, with changes being approved by the people who will be impacted by the change.

So in other words, bad and even corrupt government is a-ok in your book, just so long as it suits your ideology?

Thank you for exemplifying why I greatly prefer we reform government so that the actual qualified professionals are the ones making the planning decisions. As soon as personal politics enters into the picture, we're all screwed.


Here's a thought... Instead of this crackpot proposal, voters should set it up so that they vote on both their neighborhood and the county's overall long range development plan every 8-10 years, with the county commissioners being locked out of case by case planning and zoning changes. The county planning department should handle such issues in an objective process approved by the voters, with the contentious cases going in front of a non-partisan citizens review board (whose pool of participants would come from neighborhood and homeowners associations across the county, whose boards sign up to be in the pool)

Take these decisions away from politicians, and suddenly developers don't have anyone to buy off to get their way. They'll be stuck dealing with objective professionals obligated to follow strict guidelines approved by voters, with changes being approved by the people who will be impacted by the change.

I have absolutely no idea where you are drawing your conclusions from out of what I have written.
If was happy with bad government, I wouldn't want the ability to veto their land use decisions.

But you declared your support the very kind of decision you claim to oppose. This indicates that like the vast majority of voters, you do not have the expertise in this field to be making objective decisions about which plans are good, and which ones are bad. It's the same thing if I had to decide which medical procedure an ill patient needed, or which legal tactic to use in court. This isn't something to take offense to, but it is something that needs to be recognized and accounted for when we craft a government for ourselves. Clearly, it is not good policy to compel unqualified people to make far reaching decisions about how we build our community that they cannot effectively make. That is a certain recipe for disaster.

In the scenario I suggested, the citizenry would have a rather direct way of vetoing bad land use decisions in their neighborhoods, but more importantly, would remove people motivated by money from the decision making process.

You are not making any sense to me. Support of very kind of decision I claim to oppose?
What?
Pasco County needs to attract employers not more rooftops.

^^Exactly and I'd say nearly everyone I know in college is planning to leave the state including myself after college, what does that say?

Me included, once I help my family get things settled, I'm outta here as well. I'm tired of the boondoggling that this state does. It's insanity...JUST PURE INSANITY!

You are not making any sense to me. Support of very kind of decision I claim to oppose?
What?
Pasco County needs to attract employers not more rooftops.
WTF?

So a shady corporate welfare deal that displaces thousands of workers numerous miles outside of any existing urban service boundary is, rock solid urban planning in your book?

Are you really this blithely unaware of how things work?... Why don't you research the history of other such deals and see how enthusiastic you are then.

WTF?

So a shady corporate welfare deal that displaces thousands of workers numerous miles outside of any existing urban service boundary is, rock solid urban planning in your book?

Are you really this blithely unaware of how things work?... Why don't you research the history of other such deals and see how enthusiastic you are then.

Too funny. :bash:

How many urban service service boundaries are there in the Tampa Bay area?
So, it's taboo to try and lure business out of them but not to allow unnecessary residental growth?
Is that your position?

While I think this thread is an utter waste of time, I just wanted to address this one point (which is actually illustrative of why this hometown "democracy" is a waste of time filled with hollow rhetoric and no real fixes - all rhetoric and no substance):

No, ponzi is accurate... when local governments rely on initial increased tax base to make up for budget deficits and compounding it's responsibility to supply police, fire service, etc., etc., when they approve an incompatible development and sell an existing neighborhood down the river for an intersection improvement, that's a pretty good example of pozni.
What's your definition?

A ponzi scheme pays the original members from the new members, who are, in turn, paid by newer members. There are no real earnings and nothing of substance, just newer members paying for older members. Eventually, with not enough new members, there is nothing to pay the last layers of older members and they demand their money - the thing falls apart.

You have it all messed up. The old residents should be getting the benefit from the new residents - not the other way around - for it to be a ponzi.

See: http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

Is that your position?
My position is that the enforcement of this law would be a disaster, and going by your own words, your support for it is misguided. It won't do what you're hoping it will, and if it somehow passes, we're all going to suffer the consequences of your mistake, big time.

You have it all messed up. The old residents should be getting the benefit from the new residents - not the other way around - for it to be a ponzi.

See: http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm
Oh, please, use your imagination.
The ponzi is that the county keeps approving more growth because the influx in property tax revenues and impact fees the first couple of years is a budget plus. After that, growth statrts costing more than it generates so the government continually has to approve new growth to keep services at the same level until it all falls down and there is no new growth and then taxes go up and services go down and existing residents pay for it.
Read the cost of services analyses.
You cannot base a state economy on residential growth alone.

My position is that the enforcement of this law would be a disaster, and going by your own words, your support for it is misguided. It won't do what you're hoping it will, and if it somehow passes, we're all going to suffer the consequences of your mistake, big time.

Jasonhouse, if Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 passes the only thing that will change is that local citizens will have the ability to veto land use change decisions they feel are not in their community's best interest.

The entire process up to that point will remain the same.
The value of the amendments we will be asked to vote on will depend on the same planners, the same consultants, the same commissioners.
If they come up with good plans, what makes you so sure that people won't vote for the changes?

Jasonhouse, if Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 passes the only thing that will change is that local citizens will have the ability to veto land use change decisions they feel are not in their community's best interest.

The entire process up to that point will remain the same.
The value of the amendments we will be asked to vote on will depend on the same planners, the same consultants, the same commissioners.
If they come up with good plans, what makes you so sure that people won't vote for the changes?
Again, you're speaking in terms that are not in touch with reality.

The problem is, that at "that point" is where the whole thing basically goes nuclear. You're simply not thinking things through in a realistic manner, and worse yet, you're not listening to the actual architects, attorneys, engineers and consultants in this thread who are telling you so. (there are a few students too, who I think are mostly studying architecture)

you're not listening to the actual architects, attorneys, engineers and consultants in this thread who are telling you so. (there are a few students too, who I think are mostly studying architecture)

This right here is the problem with the metro area to begin with! No one listens to the architects, engineers, or city planners!!

"In Pinellas County, some officials were skeptical of the Forbes report.

"I would not have rated us as low as that," said Brian Smith, planning director for Pinellas County. "It does not make sense." "

Case in point, talk about arrogance. We've always been one of the worst. Jason made the best suggestion by putting PROFESSIONALS in the position to make these decisions rather than politics and politicians. And thats because they are qualified to make these decisions. I'd say the majority of Tampa are not city planners, engineers, or architects.
How would they know whats best for their community if they have no knowledge of the aspects of design that go into developments?

Commissioners certainly don't.

Again, you're speaking in terms that are not in touch with reality.

The problem is, that at "that point" is where the whole thing basically goes nuclear. You're simply not thinking things through in a realistic manner, and worse yet, you're not listening to the actual architects, attorneys, engineers and consultants in this thread who are telling you so. (there are a few students too, who I think are mostly studying architecture)

Open your eyes. It's already gone nuclear.

This right here is the problem with the metro area to begin with! No one listens to the architects, engineers, or city planners!!

"In Pinellas County, some officials were skeptical of the Forbes report.

"I would not have rated us as low as that," said Brian Smith, planning director for Pinellas County. "It does not make sense." "

Case in point, talk about arrogance. We've always been one of the worst. Jason made the best suggestion by putting PROFESSIONALS in the position to make these decisions rather than politics and politicians. And thats because they are qualified to make these decisions. I'd say the majority of Tampa are not city planners, engineers, or architects.
How would they know whats best for their community if they have no knowledge of the aspects of design that go into developments?
Bingo!

This whole thing reminds me of those who favor term limits. Fine, in theory nothing really changes, just local and state level elected officials turn over more often. In reality, unelected staff becomes significantly more powerful because there aren't elected officials with either institutional knowledge or actual policy knowledge. Its been great for my friends who are staffers in Tally and locally.

The point is the unintended consequence of this amendment will be that nothing will ever change, no votes are generally more motivated than yes votes. Land use changes will generally fail. Bad and out of date land use rules will be enshrined and growth will grind to a halt in rural and suburban counties. This is kind of a good thing for the haves, the urban counties and areas, and really screws the have-nots with their pants on. But don't worry, the voters know best!