Urban Planner: How Hometown Democracy Could Hinder Florida's Efforts to Counter Urban Sprawl

In his May 9, 2010 St. Petersburg Times story "Imagining a Less-Driven Florida", Bruce Stephenson critiques what he considers to be one of the core problems in Florida's admittedly flawed system of urban planning and development:  Florida's "60-year love affair with the auto-oriented, single- family-home subdivision."  Mr. Stephenson is one of a number of residents, planners, architects, historians, policymakers and developers who were interviewed for the program "Imagining a New Florida", a documentary produced by the Florida Humanities Council which premiers on Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. on most Florida PBS stations. 

I found this story to be very interesting because Mr. Stephenson argues that the passage of Amendment 4 / Florida Hometown Democracy could actually harm Florida's efforts to reverse the urban sprawl that has had such a negative impact on Florida's economy.  His observations are reinforced by the events that have occurred in St. Pete Beach since the 2006 adoption of the city's own local version of Amendment 4.

According to Stephenson, Florida's recovery depends on making a fundamental shift away its traditional auto-oriented, sprawl-inducing subdivision mentality: 

 "Increasingly baby boomers and millennials, the two largest age cohorts, see their future in "walkable urbanism" rather than "drivable suburbanism." As the percentage of households without children continues to rise, the current "demographic inversion" will intensify, increasing the demand for apartments, condominiums and small-lot homes in neighborhoods where residents can walk to parks, shopping and transit. Add the escalating price of land, water and oil, and it is apparent why real estate values in metropolitan areas with housing and transit options (for example, Portland, Seattle) have fared far better than Florida cities."

This view is in keeping with the new findings expressed in an analysis of 2000 - 2008 census data released today by the Brookings Institute, which found that "America's suburbs are now more likely to be home to minorities, the poor and a rapidly growing older population as many younger, educated whites move to cities for jobs and shorter commutes."  According to the study, the nation's demographics have begun a dramatic shift that will continue though in the coming decades:

"A new image of urban America is in the making," said William H. Frey, a demographer at Brookings who co-wrote the report. "What used to be white flight to the suburbs is turning into 'bright flight' to cities that have become magnets for aspiring young adults who see access to knowledge-based jobs, public transportation and a new city ambiance as an attraction."

Interestingly, the solution proposed by Mr. Stephenson and many other urban planners is an approach that many Floridians find nearly as detestable as urban sprawl, namely, increasing population densities to facilitate improved transportation and citizen connection with the community:

Economist Richard Florida predicts capital will be increasingly attracted to "mega-regions" best suited for global competition: rich in cultural diversity with efficient transportation systems, a range of housing options, healthy ecosystems, and significant research centers. Success will be measured in building more energy-efficient and sustainable communities as the ability to underwrite the far-reaching development pattern of the past 30 years continues to dissipate.

Stephenson goes on to describe how the passage of Amendment 4 / Hometown Democracy could harm Florida's efforts at urban redevelopment:

"Whether it is General Motors or outlying subdivisions, investing in oil-dependent industries is not the future. Good physical planning is step one, but we also need to engender a true "hometown democracy" that is an affirmation of a New Florida and not another round of political infighting. The currently proposed Hometown Democracy Amendment, slated for the November ballot, is not what we need. It represents a citizen revolt, and it came about because the state Legislature failed to lead and envision a sustainable future for Florida. Known as Amendment 4, it would require a public vote on proposed changes to community master plans. Unfortunately there is no accounting for good urbanism in Amendment 4; it is a communal nay, as likely to terminate the reconfiguration of a suburban netherworld into a transit stop as halt a sprawling subdivision. Utilizing limited resources more efficiently will require sharing spaces, places and reinstituting face-to-face relations. The future community — the one we need — cannot be an escape to a Magic Kingdom or arrive by government fiat. It must be vital and authentic, mixing profit with virtue to create what we can rightfully call happiness."

Mr. Stephenson makes an excellent point that is reinforced by the events in St. Pete Beach.   In 2006, the voters of St. Pete Beach adopted a local version of Amendment 4 that required a referendum vote on ALL comprehensive plans and comp plan changes.   The hue and cry raised by proponents of SPB's version of Hometown Democracy was, among other things, the need to create a "People's Vote/Veto" to prevent increases in building height and density.  The density issues in St. Pete Beach focused mainly on hotel height and density, but the citizen activists of SPB seem equally opposed to residential/condo densities as well as hotel densities, and they view the "Veto Power" provided  by Hometown Democracy-style referenda as their best weapon to fight the spread of "high rises" and "condo canyons" in St. Pete Beach.

This raises yet another reason why the Saga of St. Pete Beach is directly relevant to the Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4 debate.   Mr. Stephenson argues (correctly, in my opinion) that the future salvation of Florida's economy and its urban infrastructure is to embark on a determined, deliberate, coordinated program to fundamentally change Florida's entire urban and transportation infrastructure planning process, with the primary focus of these changes being a shift towards centers of INCREASED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DENSITY and INCREASED RELIANCE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION in order to reduce urban sprawl, reduce dependence on automobiles and other oil-based transportation modes, and increase the connection of residents/citizens with their communities.  However, in St. Pete Beach, the adoption and use of Hometown Democracy-style referendum votes/veto powers was campaigned as means of PREVENTING INCREASES IN DENSITY.  Thus, it seems to me that St. Pete Beach has proven that the Veto Power of the People can be an obstacle to the kind of comprehensive improvements that Mr. Stephenson advocates, and those obstacles would arise throughout Florida if Amendment 4 passes in November.