Mr. Niemann writes:
"Amendment 4 won’t stop anyone from building. Florida is “shovel ready” as we speak. It does not require a change in any growth plan to build a building. Current land-use designations already in place allow enough home-building to accommodate another 100+ million people, without ever making another change. More than 1.3 billion-square-feet of additional commercial floor area (13,000 Walmarts) is already approved on our growth plans. Pre-approved land is everywhere. When the market rebounds there’ll be nothing to stop business from building. Amendment 4 will simply assure that building occurs in these pre-approved, appropriate, rational places."Like many of the claims of the Amendment 4 / Hometown Democracy campaign, this argument seems convincing at first glance, but a careful examination shows that it is jam-packed with inaccuracies. Florida voters need only look to St. Pete Beach for proof.
First, the argument itself defies logic. To say that Florida is "shovel ready" is a gross oversimplification of a situation defined as much by the administrative complexity of the Department of Community Affairs's procedures as by the harsh economic realities of Florida's commercial and real estate markets.
In fact, the argument made by Mr. Niemann and other supporters of Amendment 4 / Hometown Democracy is actually two arguments wrapped into one: 1) Amendment 4 won't stop businesses from building, and 2) even if it does, Florida won't suffer because there is already a glut of approved development on the books already. Unfortunately, both of these arguments are wrong.
While it may be true that many comprehensive plans have been amended to accommodate proposed development, it is not true that "[i]t does not require a change in any growth plan to build a building" and/or that "[w]hen the market rebounds there'll be nothing to stop business from building."
St. Pete Beach proves both of these statements are wrong. Like many Florida cities, St. Pete Beach is already fully developed. Like many Florida cities, St. Pete Beach has both a residential community and a business/commercial community (which, in our case, is based largely on tourism). And, like many Florida cities, the survival of St. Pete Beach's businesses depends upon their ability to redevelop and adapt to changing demographics and economic circumstances.
Contrary to Mr. Niemann's generalized statements, St. Pete Beach has no swaths of "pre-approved," undeveloped land. There are no "shovel ready" solutions to the problems facing St. Pete Beach's aging tourism industry. In St. Pete Beach, like many cities, the path to revitalization (and in many instances, mere survival) of the city lies in RE-development, which often does require modifications to the city's comprehensive plan. Thus, Amendment 4 does threaten to hinder the revitalization efforts of many Florida cities.
In St. Pete Beach, the successful redevelopment of our hotels to maintain their competitive viability required changes to the city's comprehensive plan. It was the efforts of the hotel/tourism oriented businesses to redevelop that sparked the conflict that led to the adoption (and later the repeal) of our Amendment 4-style referendum system, as well as the avalanche of costly lawsuits.
Niemann's argument is flawed because, as one wise man once said, "all politics is LOCAL". Niemann's "shovel ready" argument sounds good if viewed broadly, but when you look closely you will see that when applied to the actual, real-world facts in small cities like St. Pete Beach, those "shovel ready" arguments simply don't apply, and Amendment 4 does threaten to hinder carefully-designed and fairly-balanced redevelopment efforts.
In fact, the conflict in St. Pete Beach reveals one of the most serious flaws in Amendment 4: it can actually foster conflict that stymies the comprehensive planning that is critical to the success of any comprehensive plan. The truth is that while there is a passionate, motivated, highly litigious minority of folks in St. Pete Beach who are vigorously opposed to the height and density increases that were authorized by a vote of the people of St. Pete Beach in 2008, the height and density increases were not indiscriminate or unfettered...they were allowed in a specifically-defined area of the city which was less than a mile long and was already dominated by existing hotels.
The St. Pete Beach plan was truly comprehensive--it recognized that certain regions of the city were predominately tourism-oriented, other areas were single family residence oriented, and it allowed adjustments and restrictions to height and density accordingly. Unfortunately, by adopting Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4-style referendum/election requirements, the city of St. Pete Beach opened itself up to lawsuits when the city's anti-growth faction didn't like the allowance for height in the city's hotel district.
St. Pete Beach's anti-development folks are opposed to increases in height and density even in the hotel district--even though height and density remain restricted in the residential districts--and the avenues for citizen veto and litigation created by St. Pete Beach's Amendment 4-style regulations have proven fatally disruptive to the city's legitimate, balanced, well-reasoned efforts to implement a truly comprehensive land use plan in a city that must successfully balance both residential and commercial/tourism interests.
In essence, the city is harmed in two ways: it's ability to balance competing interests and pass a truly comprehensive development plan is impaired by the referendum/veto, and even if necessary changes are passed by a vote of the people (as was the case in St. Pete Beach), Amendment 4's rules subject cities to the crippling cost of litigation for alleged deficiencies in ballot language when anti-development folks disagree with the will of the people of the city.
So, to summarize, the claims of Niemann and the Amendment 4 campaign that Amendment 4 won't stop building projects and that the alleged profusion of "shovel ready" projects does not detract from Amendment 4 is wrong because:
- Many Florida cities are already fully developed and therefore cannot base their revitalization upon alleged "shovel ready" projects that may have been greenlighted elsewhere.
- The alleged presence of "shovel ready" projects does not negate the fact that Amendment 4 creates impediments to well-balanced, truly comprehensive plans and amendments.
Click Here to read more analysis of the flaws in Amendment 4, including "Why Comp Plans Should Not Be Put on the Ballot" and "Why Amendment 4 Does Require Special Elections."
Even though there's only a handful of people that actual read this blog, a few points are in order:
ReplyDelete1) If we had Florida Hometown Democracy in St Pete Beach, we wouldn't have these problems. That's why we need to pass Amendment 4 particularly to help St Pete Beach. The future will be brighter for St Pete Beach once we pass this amendment.
2) Even in areas that are already built out, we still need to give voters a seat at the table. Density changes can still be changed, even in developed areas, so there is still a need to give people control of their communities.
3) Developers and Mr Hing don't like to admit it but you don't need to change a plan to build. You just need to follow the plan. The majority of development occurs without changing growth plans. Still, some developers count on being able to change plans at will. That's why they and Mr Hing are so vociferous about letting anyone other than the politicians participate in the decision-making. As they say, "when you gotta good thing going, don't mess with it". Even so, if you don't want to follow the plan (as many developers don't) then you always have the option to try and change it to suit your own personal business plan. But then voters should have the right to weigh-in, especially when they have to pay for the changes and live with the consequences.
4) Mr Hing doesn't really live in St Pete Beach. Isn't that interesting?
It must be tough running a blog and knowing that no one but a few are actually reading it. After November 2nd maybe the blog topic will change and it will get more readership.
Voters deserve a seat at the table.
Vote for Amendment 4
George: Thank you very much for following my blog and for commenting! I have a deep respect for the passion that you bring to the Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4 debate. I think we can agree that there are plenty of philosophical points that can and should be debated and discussed and that we may "agree to disagree" about.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to facts, however, well, facts are facts. This is why I posted this blogpost, which shares my observations, from the perspective of a St. Pete Beach resident, as to why your statements that "[i]t does not require a change in any growth plan to build a building" and that "[w]hen the market rebounds there'll be nothing to stop business from building" are not accurate.
In fact, my blogpost raises the specific example of St. Pete Beach, where an Amendment 4-style referendum system was adopted, and a change to the city's comprehensive plan WAS necessary in order to give the city's hotels a reasonable opportunity to redevelop to maintain their commercial viability. In St. Pete Beach there was no "shovel ready" solution, and a comp plan change was needed. The "good news" is that our comp plan change was approved by a majority vote of the people. The "bad news" is that the city was promptly sued after the vote, and, according to the plaintiffs, the major aspect of that litigation is challenges to the ballot language.
Thus, I don't see the logic in your statement that these problems would not have happened if Hometown Democracy was in place in St. Pete Beach. It was in place, and the city was sued when it tried to implement it. If you are thinking that the problem in St. Pete Beach stemmed from the fact that the election was held before commission approval, that's not really the problem...the attorney for the SPB plaintiffs has clearly said that the main point of the lawsuits was their allegations that the ballot language was deficient--and that's something all Florida cities will face if Amendment 4 passes in November.
The other points you raise in your comment do not address the point of my blogpost, namely, that your blogpost was wrong to suggest that Amendment 4 does not pose impediments to building/redevelopment. We can (and probably will) have interesting and passionate discussion about the points you raise, but your points do not address or detract from my critique of your analysis.
Regarding your assertion that I am not a resident of St. Pete Beach, well, you are wrong. I am a resident. It is a simple fact. Anyone who seriously doubts this may refer to the fact that I am the Chairman of the city's Beach Stewardship Committee, and that city residency is a requirement for service on this committee.
George, I look forward to continued discussions with you about this very important issue. I believe the voters of Florida are entitled to an honest, respectful debate/discussion about both the facts and the policies. I also believe that a discussion of such importance should not be degraded by personal attacks, and, for my part, I will govern my participation in this debate accordingly. It is my hope that you will do the same.
Every time I see a comment or hear from Hometown Democracy, they always focus on density. If density is their true issue, then why didn't they just recommend a requirement for a vote on density?
ReplyDeleteInstead they are recommending through Amendment 4 a vote on everything in a comprehensive plan, most of which, people have no issues with those changes such as: parks, traffic enhancements, wildlife habitats, wetlands, capital improvements, sewer and water services, utilization of green technologies, school elements, etc. If they believe that plans should not have to change over a period of years they are more than naïve, they are clearly turning a blind eye to the fact that the Florida Legislature institutes mandates regularly that require changes to comprehensive plans, in fact this year is no exception, all cities and counties must change their plans prior to December 30 to be incompliance. Since most cities have elections in March, should the tax payers be required to spend money for a special election so they can meet the deadline established by Tallahassee and not receive fines (which would also be paid by taxpayer dollars)?
Since Hometown Democracy state that Amendment 4 will not require special elections, I can only assume they prefer any progress in the cities and counties be held up, the city and counties pay fines to the Department of Community Affairs, and lose possible funding as a result of noncompliance.
George’s statements about St. Pete Beach are not close to fact. The amendment 4 ballot language clearly states a vote is required for any comprehensive plan or amendment to a comprehensive plan. St Pete Beach has been held to this criteria since 2006 with the exception that they do not require a vote for 5 parcels or less. The November ballot language does not include the parcel language so it will require a vote on something as small as 1 parcel.
George wants people to have a say in how cities grow and develop through a vote. In St. Pete Beach, when the voters had their voices heard through a vote of the electorate on comprehensive plan changes, they were sued because the Hometown Democracy folks did not like the ballot language. They stated it wasn’t comprehensive enough. Since the law requires only 75 words to be used in the ballot language, every city will be subject to lawsuits by opposing sides who did not like the turnout of the vote and claim unclear ballot language as rationale of the lawsuit.
Amendment 4 is NOT the right solution to Florida’s growth problems! It will only impose confusion, frustration, more elections and litigation all at the cost of the taxpayers. This is a wolf in sheep’s clothing!
The following is a submission by Tony Cahill:
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that St Pete Beach was to be the poster child for Hometown Democracy with the citizens voting for changes to the Comprehensive Plans. The citizens of St Pete Beach did vote and voted in favor of allowing our Community to develop as a resort destination area... (unlike what happened to tourism on Treasure Island, FL).
After the citizens made their choice, the local Hometown Democracy crowd known as Citizens for Responsible Growth (CRG) has forced the City to spend $$$$ hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend their frivolous lawsuits aimed at overturning the citizens vote.
Because of the cost of these CRG based lawsuits, the City of St Pete Beach has been force to cut staffing and services. The defense of these lawsuits continues which forces the City to find new sources of revenue to pay for defending against these suits.
I suggest that George has no concept of the damage Amendment 4 will do towns, cities, and counties in the State of Florida. The only gains will found by the attorneys that will be paid to file and/or defend against similar lawsuit faced by St Pete Beach.
The only sane position for George and all of the citizens of Florida to take is to vote NO against Amendment 4.
Tony Cahill
St Pete Beach
Kevin, Tom and Tony, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
ReplyDeleteGeorge has zero understanding of the real life negative impacts that Amendment 4 would have on Florida's economy and civic way of life. Everyone in Florida has benefited directly or indirectly as a result of Florida's growth.
There is NO SUCH THING ANYWHERE (whether in St. Pete Beach, South Florida, or Washington D.C., etc...) as a "shovel-ready" project. Nearly every project goes through some sort of land use or zoning change that are often very mundane and technical in nature and need to be handled by those educated in the city planning profession.
If Amendment 4 were implemented, the citizens would be required to vote on minute changes that most of the public would not have any interest in. Voter turnout would be low. It would also hamstring cities from implementing emergency procedures to City facilities and utilies that would have to wait for a ballot measure prior to approval.
The average project is in the works for over a year prior to approval and requires public hearings and several steps of approval by the local and county governments. It is already an arduous process and does require changes in design, layout and concept during the process to meet the needs of the community.
As if all the lawsuits, costs and downturn in the St. Pete Beach economy wasn't enough to convince George.
Vote NO on 4.