Thursday, February 25, 2021

In Florida, a river gains right to Flow



In the summer of 2020, the Little Wekiva River appeared to die. In the span of less than two years, the creek north of downtown Orlando, Florida, had dwindled from the width of a two-lane road to a muddy trickle. Then, in the midst of one of the rainiest hurricane seasons on record, it ran dry. Locals walked the riverbed in befuddled dismay. It was as though the river had simply vanished.

Then came the November 2020 election—and local citizens’ response to the chronic water pollution. Residents of Orange County, the home of Orlando’s theme parks as well as its biologically rich wetlands, voted to amend their county charter to grant rights to the Econlockhatchee and Wekiva Rivers. The Right to Clean Water Charter Amendment declares that “all Citizens of Orange County have a right to clean water” and that the county’s waterways have a “right to exist, Flow, to be protected against Pollution, and to maintain a healthy ecosystem.”

The election outcome made Orange County the most populous jurisdiction in the United States to recognize legal rights for nature. More than 500,000 people voted yes on the Right to Clean Water Charter Amendment, making this seemingly esoteric legislation, which passed by a landslide margin of 89 to 11 percent, the most popular item on the ballot. 

“The Orange County law recognizes a human right to clean water,” says Thomas Linzey, senior legal counsel for the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights, who has spent much of the past 20 years crafting similar rights-of-nature legislation around the globe. 


Friday, February 19, 2021

Al Maio and Mike Moran are unhappy that their own Board failed to observe the County Charter

The News Leader story could prove very important. It describes how Sarasota's elected officials have been approving new developments without first guaranteeing their fiscal neutrality. 

"Fiscal neutrality" is a goal stated in the Comprehensive Plan that new development shall and must pay for itself, not be paid for on the backs of county taxpayers.

It seems the Board has gone ahead and approved developments in a special area called the Future Urban Area outside of the existing Urban Service Area. However, it did not do the due diligence of a process mandated by the county Charter that requires new development to be fiscally neutral. 

At the meeting covered by the SNL, the discussion turned to the "future urban area" near Venice shown in this image courtesy of the SNL:

An aerial map shows the location of the Grand Palm Neal Communities development in Venice, which is part of the Future Urban Area. Image courtesy Sarasota County

Commissioners Maio and Moran seemed panic-stricken by what they were told by staff:

Does the consultant have to analyze all the other portions of the county in yellow, Maio asked again, including the “15, 16, 17 square miles that’s already annexed into the City of North Port and/or already under development, and/or inside a Critical Area Plan that’s been filed?”

The analysis would include all of the lands “that are under the Future Urban Area designation,” [County Planner Elma] Felix responded.

“That may be what the rulebook says,” Maio told her, “but to my dumb self … that’s preposterous, since it’s already under development …”

Then Maio asked how staff could streamline the process.

“Quite frankly, commissioner, I don’t know that there’s anything to be done to expedite the process much further than we’ve already identified,” Felix replied.

Bill Zoller, an architect who worked on county land use elements that eventually made it into both the Charter and the Comp plan, offered this comment:

This is a real scandal. The BCC has kicked this can down the road all this time…yet they remain on the hook to comply with the Citizens for Sensible Growth Charter Amendment (2.2A) that requires the Fiscal Neutrality analysis.  They have attempted to avoid it, and not to comply, because it will impose very difficult growth/infrastructure requirements on developers, so as not to burden unduly and unfairly Sarasota taxpayers.  Meanwhile, they seem to have pretended, more or less, that this requirement would somehow go away.  Unfortunately for the BCC, the only way this Charter Amendment can “go away” is through another charter amendment…which would require a citizen referendum.

Zoller was part of a working citizens group that sought to anticipate the worst case scenarios for bad growth, and to build in constraints to protect the land, the taxpayers, and the environment from the abuses of overdevelopment. He goes on to say:

Note Maio’s language here: "Maio then referred to the county Charter language about fiscal neutrality as “that poison pill,” adding, “And now we’re paying the price, again and again and again, unless somebody wants to correct me publicly … I’m just flabbergasted.”

They have always been aware of this requirement, yet they have blithely proceeded as though it did not exist.  This requirement was never intended as a “poison pill”…it was intended to make sure that developments, with the great burdens they might otherwise place on taxpayers with their infrastructure requirements, would pay for those burdens.  They must be fiscally neutral.

Note that the "Future Urban Area" includes large sectors of the county where developers have initiated expensive plans for giant developments - as visible in this image from the SNL:

Zoller added:

The commissioners have put themselves into a severe bind; it is now incumbent on them to put on hold all approvals that require the Fiscal Neutrality Analysis until such time as those analyses have been properly performed and commitments for the infrastructure to secure that neutrality have been made by the developers of any such developments.

This is a huge issue that needed to have been addressed years ago; wishful thinking did not and will not get it done.

Though still developing, this important story puts in focus the conflict between a sober planning process that requires care and thoughtful provision for costs and impacts on the one hand, and a concierge-style Board that does all within its power to duck, shirk, and otherwise ignore the rules in order to let developers save time and money at the public expense. Stay tuned.

Monday, February 8, 2021

"We are concerned with excessive growth"


 

ManaSota-88, Inc.  a 501.c3 Public Health and Environmental Organization

MANATEE COUNTY IMPACT FEES

Manatee County is looking for public input over the next month for a new set of proposed impact fees, a one-time charge the County imposes on new development to pay costs of providing public services to the new development. A draft copy of the Manatee County Impact Fee Update Study can be viewed at www.mymanatee.org/impactfees 

Manatee County will hold an online public comment period from Feb. 5 through March 8. Public comment or questions can be sent emailed to Nicole.knapp@mymanatee.org or sent to Nicole Knapp, Impact Fee Administrator, PO Box 1000, Bradenton, FL 34206 or call her at (941) 748-4501, ext. 7824.

ManaSota-88 supports adopting impact fees that make new development pay 100% the costs associated with the residential and commercial growth. Funding mechanisms need to be in place that meets the educational and infrastructure needs of the community.
 
Nearly everyone now recognizes that those who benefit from fast development should at least pay for it, rather than having the cost hidden in everyone's property tax bill.
 
County income will never be enough to cover all costs caused by growth unless impact fees are adequate. Federal and state funds are diminishing and there is a limit to what can be raised by taxes. When there is a shortfall, among the services most likely to suffer are those that protect the natural environment and public health. Without adequate fees, capital improvements will be woefully shortchanged, or the burden will be passed on to all taxpayers as in the past. Sooner or later taxpayers will seek a remedy for this unfair treatment. It is certainly unwise to set impact fees below the actual cost of growth to the detriment of the county's fiscal position.
 
Our concern is not with normal growth unless it unduly and adversely impacts the environment as, for example, phosphate mining in a watershed. We are concerned with excessive growth. When you leapfrog undeveloped land to sanction urban sprawl, when you allow excessive development in a flood prone area, when you rezone many enormous tracts to higher density, that is no longer normal growth. Manatee County is projected to grow significantly in the next decade. Such excessive growth is not imperative, it will be the direct result of actions taken by the County Commission to encourage or at least permit it. Excessive growth must be required to pay its way.
 
If the Manatee County Commission is truly concerned with the well-being of its residents, then the Commission must use every available opportunity to provide equitable funding for necessary infrastructure and educational needs.
 
Manatee County will become a less desirable place to live if new school construction and transportation projects continue to be under funded.
 

Thursday, February 4, 2021

Update: Toll Roads, water, and the abandonment of planning

Update on Toll Roads 2.3.21:  Dems want to get rid of them

Citing environmental and fiscal challenges, two Democratic Florida lawmakers are introducing legislation to kill an ambitious yet controversial toll-road building plan dubbed by opponents as “roads to nowhere.” 

Sen. Tina Polsky, D-Fort Lauderdale, and Rep. Ben Diamond, D-St. Petersburg, held a news conference Wednesday to discuss their proposals to strike the M-CORES project from state law and redirect the millions tapped for planning to other more critical infrastructure.



Despite budget crisis, Florida is doubling down on costly and destructive plans

Nicole Johnson: "two initiatives will change Florida forever. One will result in 330 miles of new or expanded tolled roadways opening up large swaths of our rural Florida to sprawling growth.

Nicole Johnson is the Director of Environmental Policy for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.





More on the intentional dismantling of state oversight:

Save Florida’s shreds of growth control

Palm Beach Post:

The state’s most respected smart-growth groups are aiming most of their firepower at the blandly titled HB 7103, “Community Development and Housing.”

There was one safeguard left. Citizens had the right go to court and challenge a bad decision by their local government: a condo tower that exceeds a height limit, an apartment complex in a neighborhood of single-family homes.

But if HB 7103 becomes law, that final right to protest will be crushed. Citizen challenges will face a tilted burden of proof — and the requirement to pay the opposing side’s legal fees if they lose.


More on Galvano's toll roads:


Veto New Toll Roads - Sean Sellers


SB7068 authorizes the construction of three massive toll roads, stretching from Naples to the Florida-Georgia line. However, as nearly 100 business and civic organizations noted this week, the plan is remarkably flawed and must be vetoed.