Recent Land Use News

Florida

The Florida Times-Union reported (February 21, 2004) on a citizen petition circulating in Florida that would change the manner in which developers obtain approvals from local politicians for land use changes.The initiative, in support of the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment, would require voters to approve amendments to county comprehensive plans before those changes could be enacted.Supporters of the amendment, including the Sierra Club, must gather 500,000 signatures in order to place it on the ballot for Fall 2004. Moreover, they will need to gather 50,000 approved and confirmed signatures from registered voters across the state before the amendment can go before the Florida Supreme Court, which would have to approve the wording of the initiative.

The article also reports that Florida lawmakers are currently debating a plan to place a constitutional amendment on this August's primary ballot that would prevent voter-led initiatives such as this one from reaching the November ballot.

Critics of the amendment, including the Northeast Florida Builders Association, charge that it would halt growth, cripple the construction industry, and drive up the cost of housing.

California

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported (February 22, 2004) on a proposed land use initiative in San Diego County and the negative impacts that the initiative would have on the region’s growth patterns. As the article reports, if approved, Proposition A, the brainchild of a local activist, would write sweeping new zoning laws for a vast swath of San Diego’s backcountry. The proposal, which would impose strict parcel sizes of 40, 80, or 160 acres, would act effectively as a one-size-fits-all mandate that could be altered only by another countywide vote of the people. The multi-layered zoning proposal was drafted with no public hearings and no input from local ranchers, environmentalists, planners, elected officials, or the thousands of property owners whose net worth would be directly affected by the changes imposed by the initiative

Proposition A could have the effect of derailing five years worth of work conducted by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to rezone all of the unincorporated lands in the county and which will culminate in a thorough revision of the county’s general plan. The Supervisors work, which has encompassed civic participation by a broad array of competing interests and has included scores of public hearings, is about one year from being completed.

Washington

The Seattle Times reported (February 25, 2004) on the activities of several Washington towns and cities as they begin to revise their “critical-areas” ordinances, the laws and development guidelines that protect natural features such as streams, wetlands, and ravines. The state requires all jurisdictions, regardless of their size, to update their critical-areas ordinances by the end of the year, taking into account the “best available science.” According to the article, most Washington cities have not significantly changed their ordinances since they were adopted as part of the implementation of the state’s Growth Management Act in 1992. Local planners assert that existing ordinances do not take account of specific sites or the condition of the natural features. In several cities, the protective buffers around streams, wetlands, and steep slopes range from 25 to 115 feet; however, some stream ecologists have suggested that a minimum of 150 feet is necessary to preserve the biology and diversity of the natural features.

Local developers warn that reducing the amount of buildable land will drive up home prices and one pro-development group has hired scientists to evaluate what is considered the “best available science.” The Growth Management Act directs cities and areas of counties to accommodate future growth, while at the same time requiring jurisdictions to protect natural resources. City planners, environmentalists, and developers agree that those two mandates will be difficult to reconcile. [ return to top ]