In their recent articles on Hometown Democracy, both Ron Rae of the Hernando Today and Dan DeWitt of the Hernando Times endorsed the passage of Amendment 4 in the November election.
Their recommendation was based on a need to slow down (stop?) development because of the amount of property already approved but as yet unbuilt that lies ready for an economic recovery. Planners and commissioners had already decided these were the best land uses for the properties. They were carefully planned, guarded by multiple performance conditions and development agreements that required development to pay for the needed infrastructure improvements that their plans specified.
Mr. DeWitt still cannot see Hickory Hill as a suitable transition area between the densely populated Sunrise project development and planning (PDP) and the rural sections of Spring Lake. (This area was known in an earlier version of the Comprehensive Plan as the Southeast Overlay Zone.)
So, what is becoming increasingly clear is that the proponents of Amendment 4 are against all new development - a viewpoint exacerbated by the housing bubble, speculators, vacant lots and the rate of foreclosures and job losses. This view is shortsighted. If passed, the amendment will certainly dredge up the law of unintended consequences.
In January of this year, the Washington Economics Group issued an analysis of the effect Amendment 4 would have on economic development in Florida. The figures reflected a "moderate scenario" and a "most likely scenario." Job losses would range from 106,000 to 267,000. Florida's GDP would decline between $6.5 million and $16.3 million. The total economic impact would be between $13 million and $34 million. This report mirrors an earlier (February 2006) report by Fishkind & Associates that arrived at the same conclusions "serious negative economic impacts on Florida."
Debate over this proposed amendment has uncovered the fundamental philosophical difference between proponents and those opposed, namely the view of development's role in Florida's economy.
A community that does not continuously grow is not self-sustainable. This is true partly because of Florida's Save Our Homes 3 percent cap and rising costs. On the other hand, a community that grows uncontrollably suffers from degradations in all aspects of infrastructure. Balance is required to avoid both extremes.
Unfortunately, development has a long hysteresis - it does not stop and start on a dime. Approving a 3,000-home subdivision does not mean that tomorrow there are 3,000 more homes. Careful planning requires proper phasing. The first step in the development process is the Comprehensive Plan.
And here is the second fundamental philosophical difference between proponents and foes of the amendment, namely the rigidity of the Comprehensive Plan. As envisioned in 1985, the Comprehensive Plan is a living document. Each plan was originally created by professional planners and government officials in each county or municipality. (It is ironic to see the Plan being championed as ironclad by those who would wish to outthink professional planners.)
The state statutes also allowed the Plan to undergo change twice a year. The statutes went on further to state that every seven years, a formal Evaluation and Appraisal Report was to be prepared and the Comp Plan revisited. Modification of the Comp Plan without serious and careful deliberation (and public input) was seen as an abuse. The Department of Community Affairs was designated to fill the role of oversight. Their first ORC (objections, recommendations, comments) report on any change historically has been negative - a fact that promotes more due diligence on the part of both developer and government. Only after resolution of these issues is the local governing body allowed to adopt any change.
Many arguments for the Amendment use the terms, "greedy development," "scared commissioners," "special interests." Arguments against the amendment use the terms, "greedy lawyers," "uninformed public," "special interests." These sound bites play well but gloss over the real arguments for and against.
Mr. Rae wrote "few resident citizens are aware of what goes on outside their immediate area: word of mouth travels a short distance." How right he is. So, currently residents elect officials who hire professionals to review and recommend change. Residents that care still have multiple opportunities for public comment, as I pointed out in an earlier article. The proposed amendment will allow more people to have a say, but largely an uninformed and uncaring one.
According to Floridians for Smarter Growth, at least 12 Florida newspapers (including The Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times) have stated that Amendment 4 is not in the best interests of the residents or the state. In addition, more than 300 private and public organizations have aligned themselves as supporting "Vote No."
Passage of Amendment 4 will not erase vacant lots, will not end foreclosures, will not jumpstart the housing market, and will not end speculation. It will prolong, with no added value, what is already a lengthy but necessary process.
In September, Hernando County will begin formal evaluation and appraisal meetings. Attend these to understand the full content of the Comprehensive Plan. Then attend any county meeting that reviews Comprehensive Plan changes.
Robert Widmar
Weeki Wachee
