(return to media page)


St. Petersburg Times, August 1, 2007

Developing a middle ground



A TIMES EDITORIAL


Before Hometown Democracy becomes the next full-assault ballot-box war
in Florida, the state's development watchdog deserves to be heard. Tom
Pelham, secretary of the Department of Community Affairs, is calling
for a reasonable middle ground on managing growth, and he brings
undeniable credibility to the debate.

The pitch by Pelham is that somewhere between the extremes of
development-by-referendum and development-by-bureaucratic-wink-and-nod
lies a solution that may help guide Florida's growth. He's on the
right track as he recognizes the complaints without embracing the
extreme response.

"If you follow the movement, you see that the heart of their complaint
is that local governments amend their comprehensive plans too
frequently," Pelham told the Times editorial board last week. "In my
view, their solution is an extreme, draconian approach that would
create very real problems. But we cannot ignore what's driving this.
Plan amendments should be rare, not willy-nilly."

Pelham's credentials are relevant here. He served as DCA secretary in
the late 1980s, at a time when growth-management laws were first being
enacted. He was so vigorous in rejecting overly permissive city and
county growth plans that he achieved folk-hero status among
environmentalists and land planners.

Upon returning to the DCA in January as an appointee of Gov. Charlie
Crist, Pelham has shown no signs of letting up. Already, he is
challenging rural "stewardship" plans that could create new cities,
questioning transportation formulas that lead to more urban sprawl and
restoring a sense of professionalism to an agency that had become the
developers' lapdog.

Pelham: "Saying no is not easy, but we think it's important for the
credibility of the agency for it to begin to assert itself again."

The lack of such state oversight, arguably, has helped stoke the
Hometown Democracy movement. But the group's solution is to require
voter approval for any change to a local growth plan, which is simply
unworkable. Predictably, business and development interests are
fighting back, with one recent plea for donations invoking the specter
of "utter devastation." Consultants are predicting a war chest in the
order of $65-million if the initiative makes it to the ballot.

The problem, politically, is that no one is venturing to step into the
cross-fire. Few in government have been willing to even acknowledge
the problem.

Now, each city and county is required to guide development through a
"comprehensive plan." Those plans, which were subjected to exhaustive
local and state review, were designed to serve as a blue-print but
have been treated like a rough draft. If a contractor wants to build a
high-rise condo in a place reserved for small farms, no problem. The
city council or county commission just changes the plan.

Pelham says he wants to stop unwarranted plan amendments and require
that the blueprints be changed only sparingly. He also says he is
willing to consider whether certain types of amendments should be
subjected to a local referendum.

The question now is whether the combatants on the two sides of this
age-old development struggle are willing to lay down their arms.

The fight already has twisted the state Constitution, with business
interests having persuaded voters last year to increase the threshold
for approval of new constitutional amendments to 60 percent of the
vote instead of a simple majority. The builders may be able to defeat
Hometown Democracy, but the people who are fed up with overcrowded
highways and overflowing landfills will not quit trying.

Campaign combat only polarizes this debate, and Pelham is offering a
promising alternative. Restore the intent of growth laws so ballot
fights are no longer necessary.
--