The Fight For The Next Growth Management Act
|
|
| Also listed in: Florida Progressive Coalition | Green Florida {Community Gardens} | Hold The Line |
In 1985, Florida enacted one of the more far-reaching pieces of legislation dealing with land use before or since. This was the Growth Management Act of 1985, which mandated local governments develop comprehensive plans regarding their growth and development. These plans would be sent through the state's Department of Community Affairs for approval or denial based on consistency with state and regional comprehensive plans.
While the act served as a good step in the right direction, it has since been undermined repeatedly. Individual county commissions, mostly bought off by interest-seeking developers, have continually amended what were supposed to be 10 year plans to serve the interests of their campaign contributors.
Twenty years ago, land use specialist Charles Siemon in the academic journal Environmental and Urban Issues discussed the dire growth management situation, which still exists today, despite the efforts of the 1985 act:
Conservatives have argued that the Florida Hometown Democracy amendment is the incarnation of the latter statement by Siemon. As usual, they're incorrect. While perhaps a more radical change, FHD would essentially halt the approach of more unnecessary growth and render existing developer power useless. FHD would force any amendment to a county's land use change to be put before county voters for an up or down vote.
Perhaps a less drastic change is being explored in California, where this week one of the largest changes in the state's land use law took place. Here are the highlights via the Progressive State's Network:
I think the debate over growth management and the sub-debates that roil underneath (affordable housing, transportation, energy) will be the most interesting to observe over the next decade.
I don't really think the overwhelming call for reform in the growth management sector can further be ignored by our state's leaders. The question is what the next round of reforms will look like. Will they be radical right-wing driven half measures that really don't do much of anything, or will they be strong progressive pieces of legislation that truly incorporate smart growth principles?
While the act served as a good step in the right direction, it has since been undermined repeatedly. Individual county commissions, mostly bought off by interest-seeking developers, have continually amended what were supposed to be 10 year plans to serve the interests of their campaign contributors.
Twenty years ago, land use specialist Charles Siemon in the academic journal Environmental and Urban Issues discussed the dire growth management situation, which still exists today, despite the efforts of the 1985 act:
The state is threatened with s precipitous decline in economic well-being, either because of loss of character and attractiveness, or because the citizens of the state will rise up and say "enough" and impose a no-growth philosophy on the State as a matter of majority rule.
Conservatives have argued that the Florida Hometown Democracy amendment is the incarnation of the latter statement by Siemon. As usual, they're incorrect. While perhaps a more radical change, FHD would essentially halt the approach of more unnecessary growth and render existing developer power useless. FHD would force any amendment to a county's land use change to be put before county voters for an up or down vote.
Perhaps a less drastic change is being explored in California, where this week one of the largest changes in the state's land use law took place. Here are the highlights via the Progressive State's Network:
Key Features of SB 375 include:
- Transportation and planning: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) will set regional greenhouse gas reduction targets, which will then be incorporated into each region's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
- Housing Planning: Local jurisdictions' share of regional affordable housing will become aligned with the land use plan.
- Anti-Sprawl Incentives: New developments that follow transportation planning needs will get quicker approval under state environmental review systems. Local governments will also have regulatory and other incentives to encourage more compact new development and transportation alternatives.
...
California's SB 375 is building on a range of smart policies, from inclusionary zoning to financial incentives for higher density communities, in order to better coordinate state planning and local municipal zoning while also promoting more affordable housing and smarter, more environmentally sustainable growth in California.
I think the debate over growth management and the sub-debates that roil underneath (affordable housing, transportation, energy) will be the most interesting to observe over the next decade.
I don't really think the overwhelming call for reform in the growth management sector can further be ignored by our state's leaders. The question is what the next round of reforms will look like. Will they be radical right-wing driven half measures that really don't do much of anything, or will they be strong progressive pieces of legislation that truly incorporate smart growth principles?
