Eminent Domain/Growth

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown--it may be frail. Its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it--the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the king of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

William Pitt

1708-1778

***************************************************************************

3/22/11:

The ideas of many urbanologists are heavily influenced by the cities in which they lived or grew up. To defend her mid-rise Greenwich Village neighborhood from “urban renewal,” Jane Jacobs extolled the virtues of such neighborhoods and excoriated both high-rises and suburbs. Many urban planners today, fresh out of college, remember the lively streets of their university neighborhoods and don’t understand why residents of quiet suburbs don’t want to see their own streets turned into such neighborhoods. I myself have been focused by my revulsion to the authoritarian dictates of “smart-growth” planners in my home state of Oregon.

“One’s own tastes are rarely a sound basis for public policy,” says Harvard University urban economist Edward Glaeser. “For the government to mandate a single style of urbanism is no more sensible than for the government to enforce a single style of literature.” While I completely agree with this point of view, his new book, Triumph of the City, is strongly colored by his own upbringing in a 1,300-square-foot high-rise apartment in Manhattan (p. 147).

Glaeser has done some excellent work in urban economics, and many of his prescriptions against government regulation sound fairly libertarian. Yet his book contains disappointing economic errors that lend support to those who favor government social engineering programs aimed at herding Americans into dense cities. The New York Times called Glaeser a “public advocate for urbanism,” but his new book presents him more of a public advocate for an increasingly obsolete form of living.

Glaeser left Manhattan (density: 60,000 people per square mile in 2000) at age 17, but continued to live most of his life in high-density cities, including Chicago (13,000 people per square mile), Washington (9,000), and Princeton (8,000); and he currently works in Cambridge (16,000) (p. 166). He seems to think that high densities are the norm and much of his book is a love letter to high-rise living.

Less than 10 percent of Americans live in densities as great as or greater than Princeton; the average density of American urban areas is less than 2,700 people per square mile. Except for a brief fellowship at Stanford in Palo Alto (2,500), Glaeser has never experienced such densities—never, that is, until seven years ago when he and his family moved to a 6.5-acre lot next to a 600-acre conservation area in Weston, Massachusetts (less than 700 people per square mile). He is very apologetic about this, suggesting he might rather raise his children in the same high-rise environment which he enjoyed as a youth. But, you see, the government made him move to the suburbs.

The government did that, he argues, through “anticity” policies, including the mortgage-interest deduction (most urbanites rent, he says, so policies favoring homeownership are “anticity”), better-funded schools in the suburbs, and the Interstate Highway System. None of these arguments hold water. Homebuyers in most major cities can get their mortgage-interest deductions by buying low-rise, mid-rise, or high-rise condominiums. Many states have equalization policies that guarantee the same funding per pupil to all schools, yet those states still have disparities in city vs. suburban high school graduation rates.

Glaeser’s claim that the Interstate Highway System that allows him to drive 15 miles to work in 25 minutes was “generously subsidized by the federal government” (194) is particularly ironic. In fact, the highway he takes most of the way to work is the Massachusetts Turnpike, which was entirely paid for out of tolls. Other interstate highways were 100 percent paid for out of federal and state gas taxes. The interstates represent just 2.5 percent of roadway lane-miles yet carry 24 percent of traffic and therefore generate close to 24 percent of the gas taxes used to pay for roads. Though interstates cost about twice as much, per lane mile, as lesser roads, they could cost eight times as much and the gas taxes they generate would more than pay for them.

If the federal government had not used gas taxes to build the interstates, someone else—either the states, cities, or private parties—would have built them using gas taxes or tolls. On the other hand, according to the Federal Highway Administration, Massachusetts dedicates 44 percent of its state gas taxes and 20 to 30 percent of its share of federal gas taxes on transit. So it is the suburbanites who are subsidizing the city transit riders, not the cities subsidizing suburban drivers, as Glaeser seems to think.

Part of Glaeser’s problem is that he never really defines what he means by “city.” Much of the time, he distinguishes city from suburbs, but other times he includes the suburbs.

Census data offer three units that might be called “city” or “urban,” but only one of these is valid for most economic analysis. First are the political jurisdictions called “cities,” of which the oldest and/or largest in a region is sometimes called the central city. Many cities in a region economically interact with one another, so it makes no sense to single them out one at a time.

A second choice is metropolitan area, which includes the central city, all the land in the county in which the central city is located, and all the counties surrounding it that send a significant number of commuters to the central city. The problem with this definition is that huge portions of some metropolitan counties are actually rural. The Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, for example, extends to the Nevada border and includes the entire Mohave Desert.

The only valid unit for most economic analyses is the urbanized area, which includes the central city plus all contiguous incorporated suburbs and unincorporated land that is developed to densities of at least 1,000 people per square mile. This is often significantly smaller than the metropolitan area.

Glaeser makes the mistake of confusing metropolitan with urbanized areas when he tries to explain why few people in some regions ride transit. Santa Clara County (which is the San Jose metropolitan area), he says, has only 1,400 people per square mile, and “car-based living goes together with low density levels.” In fact, thanks to urban-growth boundaries, only 20 percent of Santa Clara County is urbanized, and at 6,000 people per square mile the San Jose urbanized area is actually denser than the New York (5,300), Washington (3,400), Chicago (3,900), and Boston (2,300) urbanized areas, all of which have much higher transit usage.

Because of this mistake, Glaeser misses a key insight: it is job density, not population density, that leads to high transit usage. San Jose’s jobs are distributed throughout the urban area, while transit regions like New York have high concentrations of jobs at their core. Yet Glaeser seems to think that increasing population densities alone will reduce auto driving.

In taking this position, Glaeser is on the wrong side of a debate between those who believe in mobility vs. those who want the government to favor smart growth. Smart-growth advocates say Americans drive too much and the solution is to pack people into denser cities where they can reach destinations by transit, walking, or cycling. Smart-growth prescriptions include urban-growth boundaries and other policies to limit low-density development combined with subsidies to transit and high-density housing. Mobility advocates oppose mandates and subsidies and say that government should either spend highway user fees on highways, not transit, or get out of the way and let the private sector build new roads.

Glaeser doesn’t support mandates or subsidies, but many of his arguments parallel those of smart-growth advocates. This wouldn’t be bad if the arguments were valid, but too often they are not.

For example, Glaeser, along with many smart-growth advocates, seems to regard the automobile as a pure social bad, since cars led people to leave the dense inner cities (p. 179). He never mentions the huge benefits provided by automobility, including large increases in personal income, access to better housing and consumer goods, and innumerable social and recreational opportunities.

On the other hand Glaeser does endorse the “induced-demand” myth, that is, the idea that there is no point in building more roads because it simply leads to more driving. “Building more roads almost never eliminates traffic delays,” he says (105). Though this idea is much beloved by the anti-mobility school, it is completely absurd. There is no economic good that people will consume in unlimited quantities no matter how much is produced.

Glaeser’s answer is that highways are “free,” but this is far from true. Americans spend an average of 35 cents per vehicle mile driving, of which 2 to 3 cents are paid in gasoline taxes and tolls to support road construction and maintenance. What Glaeser fails to recognize is that American roads became congested because gas taxes were not indexed to inflation. During the inflation of the 1970s, many states virtually stopped road construction despite continuing growth in driving because they couldn’t afford to build them.

What is true is that roads are poorly priced, and tolls or vehicle-mile fees are now technologically feasible and would make more sense than gasoline taxes. Glaeser supports congestion pricing of roads, though he confuses true congestion pricing with the cordon charges used in London that are more aimed at raising money for the city than at reducing congestion. But even with the best pricing system, many cities are so congested that users would benefit from (and willingly pay for so long as they know their fees weren’t diverted to non-highway programs) highway expansions.

Glaeser’s economic argument in favor of dense cities relies on the notion that face-to-face contact is more valuable than contacts by phone or even video (34–37). But thanks to the automobile, we can have such face-to-face contact with far more people, and a greater diversity of people, than those who are within walking distance of a Manhattan high rise. Thanks to the Internet, we can dispense with face-to-face contacts when doing such routine things as shopping and many types of work. In other words, the economic forces that built dense cities such as London and New York are far weaker today, while the decentralizing forces of automobility and telecommunications are only getting stronger–facts that Glaeser fails to acknowledge.

Glaeser responds that dense cities, especially those with high-rise apartments, are “greener” than the suburbs, but there are many reasons to think this isn’t true. First, his sole measure of “green” is carbon-dioxide production, but there are a lot of other measures that would not favor dense cities, including concentrations of air pollution, noise, and light pollution. Beyond that, as I showed earlier this week, densifying cities is not a cost-effective way of reducing CO₂ emissions.

Glaeser has a useful analysis of why government regulation has made housing less affordable in cities like Boston and San Francisco than in, say, Atlanta or Houston (188-193). But he blames housing affordability problems primarily on NIMBYs. This misses an important insight: the key to affordable housing is giving developers access to abundant amounts of vacant, unregulated land. Potentially, Texas has nearly as many NIMBYs as Calfironia, but Texas counties aren’t allowed to zone, so builders can easily meet market demand for whatever kind of housing people want. (Instead of focusing on distant parcels of land, Texas NIMBYs can use their homeowner associations to concentrate on their next-door neighbors.) While Texas cities can zone, they won’t heavily regulate builders for fear that the builders will simply cross the city line.

NIMBYs can only have an influence if there is no unregulated land nearby. California cities have urban-growth boundaries that cannot be expanded without the consent of a majority of cities in each county. So even if a county wanted to allow development outside of a city, it could not without the cities’ agreement. Massachusetts, along with several other New England states, has mostly given up on county governments, turning all land over to the cities, so again, there is no supply of unregulated land.

Glaeser’s prescriptions for urban areas are, for the most part, similar to those of mobility advocates: reduce or eliminate land-use regulation, let people live where they want to live, but make sure they pay the costs of their choices. His book would be much stronger if it did not contain so many erroneous ideas that are used by big-government, anti-mobility advocates.

Randal O' Toole

8/20: Leaping forward with eyes wide shut:

Sonesta plan given go-ahead

By Gary Roberts | August 19, 2010

Seminole Chronicle

In an unusual move, the Winter Springs City Commission is allowing the proposed Sonesta Pointe development to proceed before the final engineering plan is approved.

As a result, Meritage Homes will clear the entire 40-acre site of existing woodlands and brush so construction can begin immediately after receiving the official go-ahead.

The developer of the 253-unit residential project, located in the Winter Springs Town Center district, sought to accelerate the construction schedule by having models open in time for the spring home-buying season in 2011.

Before granting the early-work permit, however, the city commission voiced concerns about rushing into a project before it is approved and establishing a precedent for future developments.

"I don't understand why we would go ahead and put ourselves at risk," Commissioner Joanne Krebs said at last week's commission meeting. "We could just let it go through the process the way it's supposed to go."

The main worry is that the planned development, which has gone through several changes already and only has been approved in concept form, might be delayed or abandoned in the future.

In fact, Meritage Homes and the city are still negotiating several requested variances that still must be ironed out for the project to meet specific city code requirements in the 630-acre Town Center district.

The waivers involve pedestrian-scale block lengths, setbacks for garages, front-back issues with lakeside lots and estate-lot widths.

The project calls for 60 estate homes, featuring 2,200 square feet of living space and porches; 133 bungalows (1,500 square feet) that are single-family detached units; and 60 townhouses (1,800 square feet) within six-unit and four-unit buildings.

The price range for all units would be from $135,000-$220,000, according to Mike Wadley, an engineering consultant for Meritage Homes.

Winter Springs officials anticipate that the large-scale project would bring needed residents and shoppers to the Town Center district.

But to build the desired high-density development, the City Commission was told that virtually all woodlands must be razed.

"You can't get the density that you need in this Town Center without basically eliminating this site," Wadley said.

City officials confirmed this assessment.

"There's a very limited number of trees that get saved on this project," said Brian Fields, city engineer. "I would envision it pretty much as a total site clearing."

To offer the city some protection in case the project falters, Meritage Homes agreed to a two-pronged mitigation plan that calls for preserving a 50-foot-wide buffer along the two developed sides of the property (St. Johns Landing and Tuskawilla Road frontage), as well as providing $140,000 that would be used for site restoration, if needed.

The consensus, however, was that if the mass grading were to take place, the site's original natural appearance would be lost regardless.

"You can never restore a site to pre-construction conditions, but this is a very aggressive mitigation plan," Fields said.

Unfortunately, the city has past experience with other planned projects that never materialized - such as the Greens at Tuscawilla adjacent to the Country Club and the property behind Bank of America at State Road 434 and Moss Road - leaving behind a long-term, scarred landscape.

"Who can give me a high degree of confidence that this project is gonna go after we wipe out our tree canopy and relocate gopher tortoises?" Commissioner Gary Bonner asked.

Clint Szubinski, vice president for Meritage Homes in Central Florida, assuaged commissioners by stating his company is committed to the residential community.

"The reason why you would grant our request is because we are bringing this before you to say this is a real project," he said. "The risk of this project not happening is extremely low. We want to get started, spend our money and get this project going."

With the City Commission voting unanimously to award the early work permit, commissioners seemed to accept these assurances, while still wary of the eyesores of past missteps.

"We all want this to happen. But again, we want it to happen, not to fail," Bonner said.

6/25: Who gets to decide how we live?

Dodd Introduces Livable Communities Act

August 7, 2009 at 8:14 am by Jonathan Kantrowitz

Chris Dodd has introduced legislation to help towns and regions across the country plan and implement development projects that integrate their community’s needs for transportation, housing, land use, and economic development.

By encouraging sustainable development at the local, regional, and federal level, the Livable Communities Act will help communities cut traffic congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption, protect green spaces, create more affordable housing, and revitalize existing Main Streets and urban centers. Dodd’s legislation is cosponsored by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Dan Akaka (D-HI).

“As our communities grow, people are commuting longer distances on more crowded roadways,” said Dodd. “Those are precious hours they could be spending with their families, and precious dollars wasted on gas. We must change the way we plan for the future of our communities and tackle these challenges with a coordinated strategy.”

The Livable Communities Act will:

· Create competitive planning grants that towns and regions can use to create comprehensive long-term plans that integrate transportation, housing, land use, and economic development.

· Create challenge grants that towns and regions can use to implement these long-term plans through investments in public transportation, affordable housing, complete streets, transit-oriented development, and brownfield redevelopment.

· Establish a federal Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to administer and oversee the Livable Communities grant programs;

· Establish a federal Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities that will include representatives from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies to coordinate federal sustainable development policies.

Last month, Dodd chaired a hearing at which Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson announced a new interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities that will help improve access to affordable housing, expand transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment and combating climate change in communities nationwide. The three departments will be working together to create a coordinated approach to transportation, housing, energy and environmental policies. In February, Chairman Dodd sent a letter to President Obama calling for the creation of such an entity.

John DeStefano, Jr., Mayor, City of New Haven, Connecticut:

Senator Dodd’s proposed Livable Communities Act represents a major step forward for the federal government and its contribution to the economic health of vibrant communities and urban centers. The bill recognizes the relationship between housing, transportation and environmental performance – a relationship that is essential to the nation’s long-term economic prosperity.

5/24: In the News Journal this article was followed with blogs saying "Vote Amendment 4". I don't know what Amendment 4 has to do with water directly, but, again, as I have stated before: it doesn't matter; people just want something else. Norm

Michael G. Wright

Wright, of Orange City, is a certified public accountant who retired as a meteorologist from the U.S. Air Force at the rank of captain. He is chairman of the Orange City Water Sustainability Committee and controller at the Council on Aging of Volusia County.

As chairman for Orange City's Water Sustainability Committee, I attended a meeting on April 29 in Deltona, where we heard from representatives of the St. Johns Water Management District about water shortage issues. As a former Air Force weather forecaster, I pointed out that a climatology map shows that Florida receives more rainfall than any place in the United States, except the coastal areas of Washington, Oregon, and the Gulf states.

Satellite photos reveal that Florida has an abundance of lakes and rivers -- the second largest lake in Florida is Lake George in the northwest corner of Volusia County. One of the water management district represen-tatives commented that we probably will never exhaust the water available to us in the aquifers. So we have water falling out of the skies, we have water lying around in the form of lakes and rivers, and we have water springing up from the ground. And yet we have a water shortage?

It is my impression that what we have is a water shortage due to legislation and regulation. Otherwise we have more water than we know what to do with. Alternet columnist David Gutierrez, in a 2008 article entitled "At Least 36 U.S. States Face Water Shortage," observed, "While Florida has no shortage of rainfall, widespread draining and paving of the region's natural wetlands has left the water unable to drain back into the soil. As a consequence, the state is forced to flush millions of gallons of water into the ocean per year to avert floods."

An October 2007 Associated Press article further points out that "...the state dumps hundreds of billions of gallons of treated wastewater into the Atlantic through pipes -- water that could otherwise be used for irrigation."

Why has legislation and regulation created a pseudo-water shortage? We can't tap into some water sources because zealots have overdone it when it comes to environmental issues.

Then there are the zealots who go overboard with respect to preservation of manatees. These issues are important, but they do not justify the threat of raising water rates by 2 to 7 times for people who simply cannot afford such an unreasonable increase. If the choice is between the manatee and humanity, then humanity must win.

Then there are big money interests that want to over-develop the area or install water desalinization plants. I guess they want us to spend our money to increase water resources, so they can rake in more money for themselves.

If we truly have a water shortage, then excessive development will only make a bad situation worse. And telling us we need a desalinization plant is like telling Eskimos they need freezers to freeze water!

Of course bottled water companies would love to convince our elected officials to require citizens to drink bottled water. And where does bottled water come from? According to the St. Petersburg Times, The Nestle Corporation pumps 500,000 gallons a day from one limestone basin in northern Florida. Add in the other 22 bottled water companies operating in Florida, and you get a total of 5.4 million gallons of water removed from Florida's aquifer every day -- most of it at no charge to the companies that pump and sell it.

So it's fine for bottled water companies to suck up all the water they want and sell it to us at premium prices, but Florida's citizens need to identify new water sources for our consumption. By the way, up until recently, these bottled water companies paid no taxes on the water they sucked up, except for a one-time fee of $150 for a local water permit. But the water management district expects us to pay more for our water -- a lot more! We certainly must use our water resources more effectively. And we must prudently protect our environment.

So what should we do?

First, we should aggressively pursue the use of landscaping options that require no irrigation. According to the United States Green Building Council, outside water uses, primarily landscaping, account for 30 percent of the 26 billion gallons of water consumed daily in the United States. Second, we need to maximize the retention and use of reclaimed water. According to the water management district, "Currently, Florida is leading the nation in the use of reclaimed water. But even as a national leader, Florida is only taking advantage of a fraction of its potential reuse opportunities."

Third, we must require developers to design building projects that minimize impervious areas to avoid excessive water run-off. The use of permeable pavements, for example, allows more water to percolate back into the soil, instead of contributing additional run-off.

Fourth, if the above initiatives are insufficient (although they might just be sufficient), we should be looking at the construction of adequate reservoirs to retain water that is currently wastefully flowing into the ocean. Reservoirs may not be as high-tech as desalinization plants, but they are probably a lot less expensive. And from what I read about the Tampa desalinization plant in the St Petersburg Times, reservoirs would probably be less costly to operate as well.

To implement these initiatives, legislation and regulations need to be modified to provide us with cost effective options to effectively manage the abundant water resources with which we are blessed. We certainly don't need "solutions" that provide massive economic benefits to major corporations, with negative economic benefits to citizens.

Regarding our alleged water shortage, however, it will not surprise me to hear the news media report one day on some scandalous relationship between the water management district and big money interests -- big money interests that once again will put their own greedy interests ahead of the rest of us. This is another situation where we as citizens should be following the money.

3/6: What is written in red below is from Michele Moen of the Osteen area is a member of the Environmental Council of Volusia-Flagler and the Edgewater Citizens' Alliance. What is written in black is from Glen Storch, lawyer for Miami Corp.

MIAMI CORPORATION MARKETING: How do we convince the citizens of Volusia that they need 27,000 new homes, 4.7 million square feet of commercial and a new highway system built within thousands of poorly drained, wooded acres - far from any existing schools, hospitals or any public infrastructure?

ANSWER: We lie to them. We put together a package of appealing "benefits". We tell them it probably won't happen until they are very old or dead. We tell them we will pay for everything. We gain support from people they trust.

(The comments in red are offered as rebuttals by Michele Moen to Mr. Storch's statements below, which are in black.)

FARMTON PROVIDES BENEFITS TO DELTONA FOR GENERATIONS TO COME -Written by Glen Storch, attorney for Miami Corporation, the largest landowner in Volusia County

I saw Larry French’s letter suggesting that Deltona hang tough. Knowing Larry, I am certain that he has Deltona’s best interests at heart. However, he has been misinformed (This is typical corporate marketing. Anyone who speaks the truth is "misinformed") as to what the Farmton Local Plan does and as to the impact of the Plan on Deltona. The actual plan, adopted by the Volusia County Council on February 18th, is good for the County and is especially advantageous for the City of Deltona.

The Plan that the staff negotiated, the PLDRC endorsed unanimously, and the County Council ultimately approved was based on recommendations from Charles Lee of the Audubon Society; recommendations from Florida Fish and Wildlife, (which cited this as a model plan); resolutions of support from the City of Oak Hill and recommendations and input from hundreds of stakeholders during the stakeholders and peer review process this Plan has endured during the last four years. This process included input from three former DCA leaders. (THE TRUTH: The Florida Department of Community Affairs recommended TWELVE TIMES that this plan not move forward. The City of Deltona publically described Miami Corporation's proposal as "poorly planned sprawl". The Daytona Beach News Journal printed: "Miami Corp's colossus is still an explosion of sprawl prettied up by "smart" growth euphemisms")

More important, their vote was based on the tremendous benefit this plan provides the citizens of Volusia County for generations to come. The plan provides the following benefits to the citizens of Volusia County and City of Deltona:

Within one (1) year conservation easements and conservation covenants will be placed (in Miami Corporation's name) on approximately 40,000 acres of land, (THE TRUTH: 15,000 acres of wet woods in Volusia County will be wearing cement goloshes. 6,000 acres of the 40,000 promised for permanent conservation is already under permanent conservation. About 20,000 acres more lies within a wetland mitigation bank, so environmentally sodden, it cannot be developed. The remaining acres are legally entitled to 2,300 clustered homes. In other words, we don't have to buy it) which is more than Volusia County has been able to buy in 15 years. This expands and protects the Conservation Corridor which would be permanently protected from development, consistent with the Farmton Local Plan. The land will be maintained exactly as it is. (Not really. There will be the pollution and noise of 80,000 to 100,000 people from a bordering new city!)These conservation easements would be at no cost to the County or to the citizens of Volusia County. (No Cost? The costs are immeasurable and will burden Volusia for generations. Thousands of acres of 100 year floodplain will be destroyed placing us all at risk. The taxpayers will be burdened for decades for infrastructure costs. The door will be flung opened for neighboring landowners owning thousands of acres of undeveloped properties, landowners also represented by Glen Storch. Our existing cities will crumble as the focus shifts to the demands of this Monster Sprawl.

The values of these lands have been estimated at close to a billion dollars;

1. The ownership of over a thousand acres surrounding the Deep Creek ecosystem would be transferred to a Conservation Trust, which would have the ability to allow for public access by kayaking, canoes and for ecotourism; (This is what Councilwoman Pat Northey sold us out for. This is the crumb we are suppose to be so grateful for. Let them build a new city, placing us in economic and physical danger and goodness - we get to go canoeing!)

2. A bear habitat corridor that is approximately one (1) mile wide would be set aside to allow for bear range and habitat. This is the first bear habitat corridor ever set aside of this size; (Not according to Tom Hoctor, Ph.D, Director, Center for Conservation Planning, University of Florida. "the current proposed plan does not ensure that a functional wildlife corridor or bear habitat would be protected.") No competition for any homes now on the market. A building moratorium would be placed on approximately 46,000 acres of land (again without charge to the citizens of Volusia County) (LIES! THERE IS NO MORATORIUM! No where in the proposed amendments is a moratorium on development created. Certain already legally required criteria is stated BUT if the housing market changes, the proposed language can be changed in support of pre 2025 development. THE ONLY THING PERMANENT WILL BE THE 27,000 NEW HOMES AND 4.7 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL.) until no less than 2025 and potentially for more than fifty (50) years from today. (Or until the housing market picks up and we can unload 27,000 new homes) Until then, only about 800 acres in the Edgewater Service Area is allowed to be used.

3. Farmton would be required pay for all infrastructure costs, when and if any residential development is ever built. (Not true! There are a lot of loopholes in the proposed language for funding. There is NO FISCAL PLAN IN PLACE for any of this. Literally, it is an economic disaster waiting to happen) Contrary to Larry’s understanding, Deltona would not pay or be responsible for any of the Farmton infrastructure. In fact, Farmton would be required to totally rebuild Maytown Road as a hurricane evacuation route from Interstate 95 to State Road 415. Additionally, Farmton would be responsible at that time to pay for any impacts on other roads. There is a proposed provision in the Plan that specifically states that Deltona will not be responsible for such road improvement.

4. Additional density is allowed in this area after 2025, but only if the landowner meets the following conditions:

a. To achieve the permitted density in 50 years (Not fifty years, after 2025 or in 15 years) the landowner must create 23,100 jobs in Farmton. This is the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to have good jobs that allow our kids to stay in our community; (Good Lord, has this man no conscience? He means 23,100 new homes will be created. That is what the proposed language actually says. The proposed jobs are for those new residents, not for any existing ones)

b. The landowner must provide for schools and an Interlocal Agreement between the parties to allow for schools in these areas; (This proposed development would be built in the NO SCHOOL ZONE created by all our cities, the county and the school district.)

c. The landowner must go through a master DRI review for the entire project, which must by approved with consensus from the adjoining municipalities and governments. Then a second DRI review would be required for any construction within these areas and then another VGMC review would have to take place. Deltona will participate in every review. (a/k/a Getting what we want now and addressing the problems later)

d. The landowner has provided for all infrastructure, at their costs, including the total reconstruction of Maytown Road and central water and sewer utilities. Individual septic tanks or wells are not permitted within Farmton.

In fact, water is a key issue. Right now, the Volusia County section of Farmton is subdivided into more than1700 ranchettes (our county law states homes will be clustered or group out of environmentally sensitive areas. Even if this good law did not exist, wouldn't you prefer 1,700 ranchettes built over 47,000 acres over 27,000 new homes and 4.7 million square feet of commerical sprawled over the center of this wilderness?) that do not allow for any habitat corridors, do not require any infrastructure improvements, including additional roads, and allow for individual wells and septic tanks on every lot (our county growth management law states that the homes will be clustered and NOT on individual wells and septic tanks). The current estimate for water usage under the ranchette plan in approximately 30 million gallons per day.

But Farmton, (even if totally built to the maximum allowed in 50 years (again, 15 years not 50 years)), would only use approximately 6 million gallons a day. 70% less water usage than the current ranchette plan. (That's right, bring in 80,000 new residents and we will use LESS water!) This is based on the water conservation requirements built into the Farmton Local Plan. The PSC certified water utility, Farmton Water Resources LLC, would be responsible for supplying water to Farmton from wellfields or reservoirs within Farmton.

By the way, Larry misunderstood the water service areas. Farmton Water Resources service area does not overlap or interfere with Deltona’s 180 water service area or the Edgewater Service Area.

One additional advantage to Deltona is that major new water resources have been discovered within Farmton. The Water Resource has no impact on nearby springs, lakes or other areas of concerns. In fact, it appears that this resource could assist in resolving future water shortages, especially if Farmton has no need for the resource for decades to come due to the building moratorium built into the Farmton Local Plan. I believe that Farmton will be a valued partner in helping our West Volusia communities resolve these issues. (Storch is basing this water fantasy on Miami Corp's hired water expert verbally stating that there is lots of water to be sold on the Farmton property. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But what is clear is that before we approve 27,000 new homes, we need to know the truth about water and we need to address the water needs of the people who live here now, not 80,000 new residents who want to move to the wet woods of Volusia.)

The bottom-line is that the area remaining out of the conservation easements will be the last piece of land utilized in Volusia County. This is a long-term conservation program that plans for a sustainable future for Farmton and Deltona and for children and grandchildren. (If you believe this, I have some Volusia swamp land to sell you)

End.

December 28, 2009

State advises Volusia to kill massive growth plan

By DINAH VOYLES PULVER
Environment Writer

State officials scooted under a legal deadline on Christmas Eve, delivering a bah humbug message to a request from Volusia County and the Miami Corp, the county's largest private landowner.

The Florida Department of Community Affairs, the state's chief planning agency, filled 13 pages with reasons why the Volusia County Council should not change the county's long-term comprehensive plan and allow a massive development the company proposed.

The Chicago-based family land trust owns 59,000 acres straddling the Volusia/Brevard county line. It wants both counties to approve a 50-year plan that calls for more than 29,000 homes and 4 million square feet of commercial and retail development. Called Farmton-Greenkey, the plan would set aside more than 30,000 acres of land in permanent conservation.

State officials concluded the county has not demonstrated any need for growth and housing in that area and the wooded, remote location of the land makes it unsuitable for development. In the county's current plan, the report states, growth was supposed to be directed away from the land because so much of it is environmentally sensitive and valuable for wildlife habitat. State officials consider it a key link in a Florida black bear corridor.

The report points out contradictions between existing plans for the land, within an area now designated a "no-school" zone for the next 20 years, and questions the potential impacts on water resources and traffic.

Department officials state the proposal lists many goals for encouraging conservation and creating jobs but lacks specific controls and monitoring requirements to ensure the goals become reality.

Volusia County has 60 days to decide whether to adopt the plan.

The department's comments are typical of how it's reacting to other proposed land use changes around the state, said attorney Glenn Storch, who represents Miami Corp. locally.

"We'll continue working very closely with the state and the county to resolve whatever issues there are," Storch said.

The state planning agency has been flooded with similar requests this year as developers and governments rush to make changes before the Hometown Democracy constitutional amendment goes to voters in the fall. The amendment is widely expected to slow growth if passed.

The department also objected to Brevard County's proposed adoption of the land use change for Farmton. The Brevard County Commission, however, adopted the amendment unanimously in mid-December. Brevard notified the state and is awaiting the department's response.

Storch said the company already is working with Brevard to address the state's concerns.

The department can either declare an amendment in compliance with state law or ask for a hearing by an administrative law judge. That would trigger a process that usually results in a negotiated settlement.

For example, the city of Edgewater adopted an amendment to its land use plan to allow Restoration, a large proposed development near Interstate 95 and State Road 442. The department objected and asked for a state administrative hearing.

However, according to documents filed recently with the Division of Administrative Hearings, the planning agency and the city have reached a settlement agreement that would allow the development to go forward.

11/28:

Citzens deserve to vote on growth

By George Niemann

November 27, 2009

After more than 1 million concerned Floridians signed petitions, Florida Hometown Democracy/Amendment 4 will be on the November 2010 ballot.

We have all experienced unprecedented rubber-stamped growth in Florida and its effects of degrading our quality of life. We have 400,000 unoccupied dwellings, a shrunken economy, budget shortfalls at all levels of government, and no sustainable solution for the lack of roads, schools and potable water.

How could this have happened? Elected officials knew we couldn't sustain this kind of growth without having the appropriate natural resources and infrastructure in place. So why did they keep approving everything?

The development industry realized a long time ago that elected officials needed financial backing to even consider running for office, let alone win an election. It has become so costly to get elected that career politicians typically rely on the developers for funding.

The developers also learned how to influence growth decisions by controlling community-based participation. So between the quid pro quo associated with providing the money for officials to get elected and re-elected, as well as, the infiltration of the government/citizen interaction process, they have developed a tight control on the outcome of growth decisions throughout Florida.

We need to provide a balancing mechanism to overcome the influence that powerful special interests hold over our local decision-makers. Amendment 4 would add only one more step to the process, but it would give communities the power to veto bad growth decisions on the part of their elected officials.

What about the claims that it will harm our economy and overwhelm the voter with hundreds of ballot items to decide on at the polls? Those inaccurate claims are intended to create a distraction from the real issues that it solves.

Our economy needs a structural change. We now know that we can no longer rely on homebuilding as our chief economic engine. Besides, our existing land-use rules will accommodate enough homebuilding for an additional 80 million people. Our economic development is headed away from homebuilding as a source, so we need to focus on attracting biotech, high-tech and green-technology industries. These industries will be glad to know that we already have plenty of available housing for their workers, should they decide to establish a base in Florida.

As to the scare tactic that the voter will be overwhelmed, citizens will vote only on changes to their local growth plan that have been approved by their local government and concurred by the state. The number will probably be anywhere from zero to five ballot items, depending on the county. Considering that voters might have to vote on five ballot items on a given election day, they need to ask themselves if having a say in how their community grows is worth the time to vote yes or no on five questions.

Patrick Slevin, a development consultant who specializes in getting unpopular projects approved for developers, argued in a recent Orlando Sentinel guest column that Amendment 4 will turn growth-plan changes into political campaigns. Think about what happens today without Amendment 4 in place. Developers who want to build more than what current land-use rules allow file growth-plan changes and then run political campaigns with elected officials, as well as local citizens, trying to get their support for the project.

Wherever a profit is to be made, special interests will use whatever means are available to achieve what they want. So, in effect, political campaigning exists today and will continue to exist. The difference with Amendment 4 is that the powerful political influence that they wield with elected officials will be neutralized by the common sense of the local residents of that community.

One caution when listening to the naysayers: Always look at what they do for a living, who they might be connected with, politically or otherwise, and what they might potentially lose if Amendment 4 were to be enacted. Using that criteria provides a powerful tool in determining credibility and whom to side with.

We need to fix what everyone agrees is a broken system that favors special interests. Amendment 4 is simple and fair and augments our representative form of government.

Florida Hometown Democracy — citizens deserve their own vote on growth.

10/30: New Urbanism is Smart Growth - Norm

Nothing 'new' here — just same old sprawl

Mike Thomas COMMENTARY

October 29, 2009

Developers have unlimited imagination when it comes to concocting real-estate scams.

Here at Horizon West, we see the latest one.

It is called "new urbanism."

Horizon West is a sprawling, fledgling 59-square-mile development in the boondocks of southwest Orange County. It should not be here.

Until a few short years ago, there was nothing here but swamps and dead citrus trees.

But the landowners got together to decide how best to get it paved. And they sold glassy-eyed county officials on ... new urbanism!

They would build self-contained, densely packed villages where residents would talk on quaint front porches, enter the garage through the back alley, and walk or bike to village centers and town centers to work and shop. No expansive yards to maintain, no ugly driveways emptying into the street.

Green paving!

And there was a precedent.

Only a few years earlier, the County Commission approved Avalon Park out in the hinterlands of east Orange County.

Only in Florida could you have new urbanism without the urban.

"I think this is extraordinarily good planning," said then-County Mayor Linda Chapin about Horizon West.

"In 20 years of experience, this is the most sophisticated planning I've seen," state planner Charlie Gauthier said at the time.

"Horizon West ... is a perfect example of how government can encourage development without encouraging urban sprawl," said our editorial board.

They were about to put 60,000 people in the middle of nowhere, all without encouraging urban sprawl.

New urbanism has become a virus that spread the illness it was supposed to cure.

This is not to say Horizon West, or at least the part of it that has been built, is hideous. It is what it is: a network of sprawling commuter subdivisions far from any urban center.

There is little mixing of homes, condos and apartments, as you see at Baldwin Park. There is no coherent whole created from a tapestry of different parts.

Residents don't walk to stores, don't walk to schools and don't walk to parks. When they go to work, they get in their cars and take their place in the long rush-hour lines.

"It has not developed into the vision we all wanted," says Rick Geller, a county Zoning Board member appointed by Commissioner Scott Boyd. "People were expecting Horizon West to look like Baldwin Park or Celebration. But instead it looks like suburban sprawl."

Like Avalon Park to the east, the homes went in at Horizon West, but the job centers did not. And so people drive to work, often long distances on the expressway. To ease the traffic jams, rural two-lane roads such as County Road 535 are being expanded into four-lane thoroughfares.

They slice the development into pieces-parts.

County ordinances require walls for developments situated on these roads.

What you have are people who live across the street from a Walgreens getting in their cars, driving to their development entrance, then driving across the street to get toothpaste.

A guiding principle of new urbanism is that you put the stores in village centers, creating easy access for residents living around them. This was done at Baldwin Park.

But the chain stores wanted to be on thoroughfares in Horizon West, and the county naturally caved in. The result is strip shopping centers and parking lots — prettier than most, but strip centers and parking lots nonetheless.

On a tour of the place, I saw a total of two people on sidewalks.

In some developments, they even left out the back alleys — a big no-no in new urbanism. Instead of quaint homes and front porches facing the street, there are lines of garage doors and wide driveways. The reason for this, of course, is that alleys take up land that developers don't want to give up.

As Geller explains, Baldwin Park was built by one developer with one plan. Horizon West has dozens of landowners, developers and builders, each looking to maximize return on investment.

Baldwin Park also has the advantage of being in the urban core, with the roads and infrastructure in place. There are no thoroughfares cutting through it.

Geller led a charge to scale back plans to widen one road. He wants curbside parking to lower speeds and make it more pedestrian-friendly. Boyd wants to move a proposed high school closer to residential areas.

It seems too little, too late. But Geller says most of the development remains to be built — including the main town center — and can be improved upon.

"If we're going to have sprawl," he says, "I'd like it to be new-urbanist sprawl."

10/28:

Water War Pits West Volusia Against East

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Reported By Saul Saenz

DEBARY -- There's a water war brewing in Volusia County, and it's pitting the west side of the county against the east.

"Volusia County will be divided and it'll be destruction as far as I'm concerned. (Water wars?) Oh yes," said DeBary Mayor Bob Garcia.

Garcia said West Volusia County cities are being asked by the St. Johns River Water Management District to reduce the amount of underground water they use.

But the problem is that East Volusia cities are not being told to do the same, and Garcia said west side customers will see their water bills rise.

"We're talking between 250 and 700 percent increase," Garcia said.

"That I can't afford to water," said Mary Wooley, a DeBary homeowner. "I can't afford to take a shower, the whole nine yards! It's terrible."

Wooley pays an average of $20 a month on her water bill.

If she continues to use the same amount of water and Garcia's predictions hold true, her bills will go up more than $200.

Beverly McCain, a nursery owner, uses well water for her plants, but realizes her customers may not.

"Most of my customers have city water, and if the city bill starts to go up, they're not gonna be able to afford to water their plants," McCain said.

Garcia is also concerned about what those increased water rates will do to the future of business development in DeBary -- specifically, businesses that want to relocate to Volusia County.

"Why would I want to build a business here, where I'm going to be spending $400 a month on water when I could go over to the east side and spend $60 to $70," Garcia said.

Garcia said any future development could evaporate as a result of these water wars.

Cities affected by these water use reductions are DeBary, DeLand, Orange City and Deltona.

St. John Water Management District officials are telling all cities to look for alternative water sources instead of drawing from underground water.

10/27: Move to Urban Core Takes Root

October 27th, 2009

I don't think the shift to a compact and sustainable development (SMART GROWTH - Norm) pattern is an "urban myth," as Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas wrote ("Making move to urban core is urban myth" Orlando Sentinel, Oct. 11). And I certainly don't agree that downtown developers are "idiots."

I sincerely believe (so zoning and building is built on a "belief"? Wow - Norm) that empty nesters, and others, actually want to live a different lifestyle and choose to be part of an active, interesting, diverse and cultural community. Documented demographic data support this belief. (Care to cite any? - Norm)

Simply put, sprawl is unattractive, inefficient and does not work. Period. Empty nesters will not want to stay there, and as a development model, it is unsustainable. People are interested in making responsible and more cost-effective living choices. Given alternatives, they will choose a better quality of life. At the same time, society, business and government will be motivated to pursue a more-sustainable and responsible urban-development pattern.

Contrary to the story spun by Thomas, the condo valuation issue is not isolated to center cities. Valuation problems are marketwide and not just for downtown condos, which are an extremely small part of Orlando's total housing inventory. Devaluation exists downtown, but it exists everywhere and is definitively tied to overall problems in the general housing market.

In case you haven't noticed, we have a full-blown recession on our hands. And, yes, these problems even exist in the unrealistic depiction of suburbia that Thomas refers to.

The fact is baby boomers are not staying put. They know better. They want to move, and it's not because of some clever sales pitch by us "idiot developers." We have helped build a few really neat downtown neighborhoods with great restaurants, high-quality condos and a nice variety of things to do. Baby boomers and empty nesters are large contributors to our success.

For office space, the market reality is that you need new buildings in anticipation of demand. The increased tax base is a good thing, and you absolutely must have adequate supply to accommodate business growth when the economy rebounds. As a city, we cannot take a long time reacting to new demand. We need to proactively recruit and attract corporate headquarters and businesses that will diversify our economy.

An overall economic recession logically leads to housing-value declines and higher vacancy in the commercial office market. Such a situation also means that empty nesters who want to move downtown can't do so because they are unable to sell their current home.

Orlando has a lot going for it with solid long-term-growth prospects. I believe the move to the urban core has taken root and will grow exponentially over the next several years. A lot of empty nesters, and a whole bunch of the rest of us, are sick of sprawl and will make more-reasonable and -intelligent choices in the future.

Only an idiot would think otherwise. (Nice argument - Norm)

Craig Ustler is the president and owner of Ustler Development Inc. (Mike Thomas, Columnist for truth vs. a builder - Norm)

10/16:

October 16, 2009

Volusia OKs massive Miami Corp. plan

By DINAH VOYLES PULVER
Environment Writer

A plan for future development of a new town on 59,000 acres between Osteen and Edgewater won its first approvals from the Volusia County Council on Thursday.

The council voted 6-1 to forward the request to change the county's land use plans to the state Department of Community Affairs for review.

The plan covers a 92-square mile area in Volusia and Brevard counties owned by the Miami Corp., a Chicago-based family land trust. If adopted next year, it will eventually put more than 40,000 acres of land into permanent conservation and wildlife corridors. It also includes plans for 29,600 homes and more than 4 million square feet of office, retail and possibly light industrial space.

Council member Andy Kelly cast the sole no vote.

"This is almost a great plan," Kelly said. "I just can't go to that density level. It just doesn't seem fair."

County Chair Frank Bruno said the plan is a perfect example of the smart growth principles the county and region has been talking about.

"We should have been doing this many, many years ago where we can cluster and preserve green space and protect the wildlife," Bruno said.

The landowner's representatives wrangled over details in the proposal with county staff for more than 10 months, changing the proposal dramatically in the process, said Greg Stubbs, director of the county's growth and resource management department.

After state officials review the plan, Stubbs said, it will undergo many more changes before it comes back to the council for final adoption sometime early next year.

The opportunity to put so many acres into preservation without buying it or managing it is a "win-win," Stubbs said. It provides "wildlife corridor connectivity though the entire central core of the county."

The project does not require any financial investment by the county because the developers would be required to build and pay for the network of roads and sewers to serve the development, Stubbs said. Each proposed phase of future development would undergo the full county and regional review process.

The plan calls for conservation-oriented development that ties job creation to home construction, requires water and energy conservation and environmentally friendly building practices.

Twenty-one speakers addressed the council, with 12 speaking in favor and nine asking for a no vote.

Among supporters were representatives of local and state Audubon groups and several local farming families, including Lisa Ford Williams of DeLand.

"Twenty years from now you all will look like heroes," Williams said.

Also speaking in favor was Charles Lee, director of advocacy for Audubon of Florida.

"In the 37 years I've been doing this I've not encountered a process that has in a single sweeping tone incorporated all of the right things in the way this one has," Lee said.

Opponents voiced concerns about the size and scope of the development, putting homes in the midst of what is now a vast wooded area, and further increasing water use.

The county already is "running out of water," said speaker James Virene.

"Dropping 23,000 new residences into our heartland of this county is going to further the degradation of our aquifer," Virene said. "We're going to be rushing headlong faster and farther toward dry wells and saltwater intrusion."

Sierra Club member Elizabeth Camarotta of DeLand compared the company's request to setting a liquor store down in the middle of a residential area.

"You're arguing it's ridiculous," Camarotta said. "What Miami Corp. is asking is ridiculous, too."

Councilwoman Pat Northey said her affirmative vote was a "hard yes."

But, in the end, the planned conservation of more than 40,000 acres proved a key issue for Northey, who has long advocated land conservation and recreational trails.

"My grandbaby will continue to be able to go out there and enjoy the rural heart of this county," she said.

Northey, Kelly and Jack Hayman said they hope to address other areas of concern to them before the plan comes back to the council for a final vote early next year.

WHAT'S NEXT

Now that the Volusia County Council has approved the Miami Corp.'s request to amend the county's long-term land use plans, what's next?

· The proposed amendment will be forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, which has 60 days to respond to the county with an Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The department already has received the documents from Brevard County.

· Once the county receives the report, it has 60 days to decide whether to adopt the amendment, adopt the amendment with the department's proposed changes or reject the amendment.

· Should the county decide to adopt without making the department's suggested changes, the county and the state could wind up in mediation talks or before a state administrative hearing judge.

10/15:

October 15, 2009

Water concerns hang over huge development plan

By DINAH VOYLES PULVER
Environment Writer

EDGEWATER -- Water -- and its constant state of flux -- often tops discussions about long-term plans for the 59,000 acres Miami Corp. owns in Volusia and Brevard counties.

Opponents fear development could increase flooding troubles and put more strain on the area's supply of fresh groundwater, which regional water managers say is dwindling.

Competition for water concerned members of the New Smyrna Beach City Commission during a presentation about the company's plans Tuesday night. They wanted to be sure Titusville and Brevard County couldn't come looking for water in Volusia.

Today, as the Volusia County Council considers the property's future, water again may play a key role.

The council will vote on proposed land use changes to allow for eventual development during the next 50 years. Miami Corp., a Chicago-based family land trust, has owned the 92-square-mile Farmton timber farm between Edgewater, Osteen and Mims for more than 80 years.

The proposal was unanimously approved by the Brevard County Commission in September.

In exchange for rights to build 29,500 homes in the two counties, company officials dangle two enticements: permanent conservation of 40,623 acres and water. The company began spreading word to officials in both counties this summer that a consultant discovered a new "vein" of groundwater under the land.

That raised eyebrows but also proved an attention-getter in a region under pressure from the St. Johns River Water Management District to spend millions, if not billions, to develop new sources of water.

The company recently began a water partnership with the city of Titusville and expressed interest in looking into a similar agreement with Volusia County for water pumping and possibly storage.

To Maryanne Connors, a deputy county manager embroiled in water issues for years, the prospect of additional water, even for the short term, sounds pretty good.

"We are very interested," Connors said.

The company's consultants, Devo Engineering, recently discussed the findings with the county and water management district officials.

"We were impressed with the level of additional data they had collected in an area that has some uncertain aquifer characteristics, and expressed an interest in reviewing their analysis in detail," said Hal Wilkening, director of resource management for the district. However, the district wants to take a closer look and has asked for more in-depth information on the consultants' computer modeling.

Connors said some water experts long suspected more water could be found under the company's land.

A separate independent consultant said this week it isn't unusual to find additional sources of water in the ground layers where Florida's water is stored.

"Not every square mile of Florida has been explored with monitoring wells," said Tom Missimer, of Missimer Groundwater Science. And, he said, developers spend more money up front than water districts looking for water.

"Over the years in South Florida we've actually found some new systems that haven't been explored," he said. "Everybody is skeptical when they hear it the first time."

Missimer said the real issue will be what the district's subsequent studies reveal and whether the agency allows the water to be used.

Still, some environmental advocates question the long-term impacts of pumping any additional water and worry about the related impacts from population growth.

Local Sierra Club members lobbied hard against the project this week.

"They are trying to give away the heart of the county," said treasurer Elizabeth Camarotta.

Others, including Florida Audubon, are expected to lend support to the project today.

Officials for Miami Corp. and Volusia are discussing a joint venture allowing the county to pump from Farmton to help stretch the water supply it provides to its West Volusia customers. Connors said water could be available until sometime after 2025, when Farmton begins development.

Such an arrangement could dramatically extend the timeframe district officials gave the county to come up with alternative water supplies.

The district suggested the county consider building a reservoir at Farmton, Connors said. But county officials thought it might be too expensive and create too much damage to natural areas.

The county also has looked at capturing and using stormwater that flows across Farmton, as well as across a 5,000-acre tract to the northwest of Farmton owned by another family corporation, the Lefflers.

Both options gave the county a little leeway in negotiating an agreement to settle a lawsuit it filed against the water district earlier this summer. That agreement also is on the agenda today.

The district included the county, city of DeLand and the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach in a list of possible partners on a project to tap the Ocklawaha River for water. All three government agencies filed a petition with a state administrative court, asking to be removed from the list.

In the settlement being considered today, Connors said the county agrees to look for alternatives that would accomplish the same thing.

The council is scheduled to consider this item at 2:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 123 W. Indiana Ave., DeLand. Listen to the meeting live online at volusia.org

Types of habitat; total acres; acres to be conserved; acres to be developed

Crane & Spruce Creek swamps; 13,759.64; 13,523.54; 236.1

Buck Lake & surrounding marsh; 1,159.60; 1,159.60; 0

Cow Creek & Deep Creek systems; 1,672.99; 1,615.40; 57.59

Large sloughs; 6,726.39; 5,243.80; 1,482.59

Salt marsh; 22.44; 22.44; 0

Scrub uplands; 845.66; 304.9; 540.76

Oak & hardwood hammocks; 1,033.65; 920.08; 113.57

Smaller wetlands; 3,013.68; 1,273.64; 1,740.04

Natural pine flatwoods; 1,192.03; 869.2; 322.83

Planted pines, lowlands; 4,235.60; 2,876.60; 1,359

Planted pines, uplands; 24,393.19; 12,159.40; 12,233.79

Wetlands that have been logged; 1,030.13; 654.64; 375.49

Total; 59,085; 40,623.24; 18,461.76

SOURCE: Miami Corp.

Q. How much land does Miami Corp. own here?

A. 59,000 acres: 47,000 in Volusia County and 12,000 in Brevard County.

Q. What's out there now?

A. Hunting leases and timber harvesting. No one lives on the land. A series of dirt roads crisscross the property.

Q. What's proposed?

A. Permanent conservation of 40,623 acres and a series of developments with 29,500 homes, including 19,832 single-family homes and 4,265 apartments in Volusia County. The plan also calls for roughly 4 million square feet of retail, office and industrial space, including a hospital and eight schools. The plan ties job creation to home construction.

Q. How many homes could be built on the company's land in Volusia County under existing rules?

A. 2,287, or 4,692 if clustered.

Q. How much land would have been conserved under a wetland restoration bank approved for the property?

A. 24,000 acres. Of that, 7,000 is in an active bank and must be permanently conserved.

Q. How much total water use is proposed?

A. 6.7 million gallons per day, about 7 percent of the total water used in Volusia County in 2007.

Q. How much of the Volusia land is within the 100-year floodplain?

A. About 73 percent, 34,200 acres.

Q. Where would the first development take place?

A. The only development proposed before 2025 would be a commercial and residential area called the Gateway, off Possum Camp Road in Edgewater. The road would become an extension of Williamson Boulevard and State Road 442. The plan calls for 4,692 homes and 820,217 square feet of nonresidential building space in the Gateway, but under existing school district rules, no more than 2,287 homes could be built on the land without a special agreement.

Q. After holding on to the land for 80 years, why did company officials act now?

A. The corporation hopes to seal development rights before the Hometown Democracy amendment to the state constitution goes before voters in November 2010. The amendment would require such land use changes to be approved by voters, a move aimed at slowing rampant growth and widely expected to make development more difficult.

10/11:

Making move to urban core is urban myth

Mike Thomas COMMENTARY

October 11, 2009

Empty nesters will tire of their big, empty ranch homes. They will move to urban centers and live happily ever after in their skyboxes, enjoying the view, free from the tyranny of big yards and automobiles.

The young professionals were to bring energy and buzz to downtown Orlando. But it was the baby boomers who were supposed to bring the fat portfolios, using them to buy the luxury condos, eat at the cafes, shop at the exclusive stores and by tickets for the new performing-arts center.

It was a theory pushed here and around the rest of the country.

But this push toward urbanization is becoming an urban myth.

And that's a huge blow for Orlando, where the city and developers have invested hundreds of millions in an urban vision that never attracted a key constituency.

"Someone who grew up living in 2,500 square feet with a driveway leading up to the front door isn't going to downsize to 850 square feet until he's ready for assisted living," says Joel Kotkin, a scholar on urban development who wrote The City: A Global History. "The new urbanists convinced the idiot development community there was going to be this massive move that never happened."

And the idiot development community convinced idiot public officials looking to revive their downtowns. And together they convinced the idiot journalists looking to promote a green lifestyle free of McMansions, commutes and St. Augustine grass.

In the real world, it seems the baby boomers are staying put or getting as far from urban centers as possible. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently released a report noting the boomer trend is country living. It actually projects a decrease in the urban population as empty nesters invade rural areas.

Orlando must depend on the downtown youth movement. But as Kotkin points out, this demographic doesn't have "the scratch" to buy the condos and create the sophisticated environment envisioned by Orlando leaders.

Real-estate agents confirm this, telling me that the people moving downtown can't afford down payments and are looking to rent.

What has been a downward spiral in condo prices threatens to become a free fall.

I found a unit in a new building listed for $307,500 at the beginning of August. It was marked down to $287,500 and then to $267,500 and then to $247,500 and then to $227,500 and now to $207,500.

If you paid $350,000 for the exact same unit next door, you are making big payments for a shrinking asset.

This creates an incentive to walk away, even if you can afford the payment.

Condo developers and boards once restricted the number of units that could be rented to maintain property values. Those restrictions are being jettisoned. It is either let the units sit empty, or rent them to bring in revenue to maintain the buildings.

We are going from a condo glut to a rental glut. Where investors once lined up to buy units, guys are waving signs on street corners to attract renters into empty buildings.

This is exacerbated by a 20 percent vacancy rate in downtown office space, the worst glut in memory.

Consider this: Developers have added five office buildings and about a million square feet of office space to downtown since the beginning of 2005.

You could eliminate it all and there still would be office space to spare.

Minus baby boomer money, downtown must rely solely on job creation to survive.

It is a financial center that depends on growth to feed it. Growth creates a demand for the lawyers, lenders and accountants. And we are not growing.

"I think we are just recognizing the worst of the office market," says Jeff Sweeney, a commercial specialist with Grubb & Ellis. "We are not at the bottom yet. The good news is that mortgage applications are up 16 percent."

The bad news is that it reflects opportunistic buyers and investors snapping up bargains, not new growth.

We are losing population. And when the exodus stops, the heydays of past growth aren't returning in anyone's economic projections.

Downtown is in something of a race against the clock. There is a glut of empty space to maintain with dwindling resources to do so. That puts pressure on everybody from the condo owners to the office-building managers, to the developers, to the lenders.

The area certainly is not doomed. But it is in for a long, hard reality check.

"I wouldn't write off a storybook ending yet," says UCF economist Sean Snaith. "It just depends on how many chapters it takes to get there."

9/28:

September 28, 2009

Coquina Coast desalination project a disaster in the making

By WENONAH HAUTER
COMMUNITY VOICE

In the 19th century, Florida suffered from excessive water. Now it has the opposite problem. With Florida's skyrocketing projected levels of development in upcoming years and current ranking as the highest per capita consumer of water in the world, this scarcity problem is only going to get worse. Seawater desalination has been hailed as a solution to the increasing problem of under-supply and over-demand. But desalination is hardly the wellspring that some tout it to be.

In fact, desalination creates a litany of economic and environmental problems and is primarily an opportunity for private companies to act in their own self-interest while harming the communities they claim to help. Now, in the wake of the failures seen throughout the country's existing seawater desalination plants, comes a larger and potentially more disastrous one in Florida. Many area residents are unaware of this problem percolating in their own backyards.

The proposed Coquina Coast seawater desalination plant, which will primarily serve Flagler, Volusia and St. Johns counties, aims to provide about three times as many gallons per day as the country's largest existing seawater desalination plant, located in Tampa Bay. The Tampa Bay plant -- designed to pump 25 million gallons per day -- has seldom run at full capacity, and, in fact has faced financial and technical problems for years.

The cost drove the plant's builder, Stone & Webster, to bankruptcy. Covanta, the company that then took over the project, also filed for bankruptcy a year later due to the California energy crisis. Eventually the Tampa Bay Water Authority, a public utility, had to take over. The overall building cost was $158 million -- nearly 44 percent pricier than original projections. Now comes word that the Coquina Coast plant may cost more than $1 billion. Considering the disparity between the estimated and actual costs in Tampa Bay's case, the Coquina Coast plant's ultimate price tag could easily top its already exorbitant one.

Even worse is the fact that these costs may trickle down to consumers in Florida through higher water bills. According to a recent article in the DeLand-Deltona Beacon, the current average household water bill in Volusia County is $28.32 per month for groundwater. Should they switch the water source to Coquina Coast, the bill could increase up to $174.80 per month.

If you think that a six-fold increase in price is shocking, consider the other challenges that the area will be forced to contend with, starting with, but not limited to, the colossal amount of energy required to run a desalination facility. California is an excellent example of this. Currently, the energy required for seawater desalination in California is 14 times the required amount needed to obtain groundwater, and nine times as much as surface water treatment. This energy use contributes to global warming -- which is only one of desalination's negative effects on the environment. Oddly enough, since global warming will create further droughts and water scarcity problems, desalination will actually undermine its own goal of solving this dilemma.

Another environmental issue associated with the technology is disposal of the toxic brine created by the desalination process. The only nonliquid disposal option is too expensive and energy intensive to be practical, so the plant will likely have to resort to dumping the liquid directly into the ocean -- along with all the contaminants that come from treating the water and cleaning the membranes used in desalination. These same intake structures can also capture krill and other organisms that serve as nutrients for baby whales and other creatures.

Florida officials had the opportunity to ameliorate the state's water problems. In 2002, a task force recommended over 50 measures to conserve water -- none of which had been enforced by state law five years later. This problem is not singular to Florida -- the United States as a whole loses 6 billion gallons of water per day due to leaking pipes and other problems. It is currently possible to provide only a quarter of this water through desalination -- hardly the magic bullet. The state of Florida should follow its own advice and implement conservation measures rather than resorting to such a costly and damaging water procurement process.

Residents of the Coquina Coast have the opportunity to learn from Tampa Bay's mistake. Even Tampa's own mayor, Pam Iorio, has warned against desalination after the Tampa Bay debacle, justifying it only after all other options have been exhausted. To ignore her words and allow this process to go forth would be a costly and damaging mistake.

Hauter is executive director of Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer advocate organization for clean water and safe food in the United States.

9/23:

OrlandoSentinel.com

Farmton

Volusia County gives 1st approval to Farmton -- city in the wilderness

Miami Corp. plan would conserve 40,000 acres of timberland

Ludmilla Lelis

A plan that would conserve more than 40,000 acres of remote timberland while establishing a new city of more than 20,000 homes has passed its first round of approvals.

The Miami Corp., a Chicago company that has owned the vast tree farm in Volusia and Brevard counties for more than 80 years, won unanimous approval Tuesday from Volusia's planning commission. Brevard County's planning agency and county commissioners have also approved the plan.

What's next?

The future city of Farmton, carved alongside wildlife corridors, must win the backing of the Volusia County Council in October before the state Department of Community Affairs reviews it.

What do plans include?

The proposal offers a trade-off for the company's 59,000 acres, which approaches the size of Orlando.

About 75 percent of the property, more than 40,000 acres, would be permanently set aside for wildlife corridors for the many species there, including Florida black bear and swallowtail kites. The development would be clustered into eco-friendly villages and business districts.

Because there would be no infrastructure or schools at first, the only development occurring within the initial 15 years would be a "gateway" business district near Edgewater. Most of the development would occur after 2025, after roads, utilities and a school plan are in place.

What's the price for the conservation lands?

At Tuesday's hearing in DeLand, Clay Henderson, an attorney for Miami Corp., said the land to be preserved would make up the biggest conservation deal in Florida's history if public money had to buy it. The land is valued at $600 million to $1.25 billion, depending on its approved use.

The company has promised to conserve the corridors without asking for a dime.

To make the whole package viable, Miami Corp. attorney Glenn Storch said the development rights would be transferred onto the remaining areas, but the company is not in any rush to build soon.

"The Miami Corporation is not a developer. They've been good stewards of the land for 80 years," he said. "We don't need to develop anything now."

Why now?

Opponents of the project questioned whether such a massive project should be approved now, especially such dense development in a remote area within the 100-year flood plain.

"What's the rush? There is no rush to build anything right now," said Betty O'Laughlin, with the Environmental Council of Volusia and Flagler Counties, an umbrella group for local advocates. She pointed to a glut of vacant homes and others that had already been approved for construction by the county.

Becky Mendez, Volusia County senior planner, pointed out that the proposal included several thresholds to be met before each phase of construction could move ahead.

The company has pressed for approval of the plan before the constitutional amendment called Hometown Democracy appears on next year's ballot. It would give voters potential veto power over development plans being considered by governments.

Storch emphasized that construction would only occur when the homes and businesses are needed.

"This is a 50-year plan, and we're trying to create a vision so that when the need is here, when the market is here, we have a vision for what will be here."

Trees or homes? Miami Corp. land use hinges on Volusia, Brevard OK

Ludmilla Lelis

Sentinel Staff Writer

September 5, 2009

During the next 50 years, a new city of residential villages and business districts could be carved out of remote timberland in central Volusia and northern Brevard counties where Florida black bears and panthers still roam.

That's the vision a Chicago company offers for 59,000 acres west of Interstate 95. One of Florida's largest privately owned tracts, the land has sat largely untouched for 80 years while the rest of Central Florida has developed.

The Miami Corp., founded by a family whose fortunes came from International Harvester, is offering to preserve 75 percent of the property — more than 44,000 acres — in exchange for the right to create dense but environmentally friendly villages on the rest.

The development, to be called Farmton, could someday have 23,000 residences — more than the number of homes Ocala has now. The company hopes to get approval from both counties this month.

"This family wants to do the right thing and has a legacy of doing the right thing," said Glenn Storch, a Daytona Beach attorney representing Miami Corp. "Should this be ranchettes in the future, or do we want preservation of 75 percent of the land? It shouldn't be that difficult to decide."Opponents, however, wonder whether more homes and businesses are needed, given the glut of homes for sale and vacant commercial space.

"There is no good reason. There is no demonstrated need," said Barbara Herrin, a New Smyrna Beach environmentalist. "What they need to tell us is: 'Why are you doing this?'"The Deering family, which once owned Miami's lavish Vizcaya mansion and gardens, began buying the property more than 80 years ago and has managed it for decades as a tree farm with hunting camps. The land makes up much of the "palmetto curtain" separating Volusia's coastal cities from burgeoning cities along the St. Johns River.

However, profits from the tree farm have dropped, and four years ago state officials — knowing that the land had development potential — broached the idea of balancing development with preservation of large wildlife tracts, Storch said.

The company is hoping to get approval this year, before next year's potential passage of a ballot measure known as Florida Hometown Democracy. The proposed constitutional amendment would give voters veto power over development projects.

"Clearly that will change the dynamics," Storch said. "The window of opportunity to make this vision a reality is now."

Only a "gateway district" of homes, shopping centers and other businesses near I-95 and State Road 442 would be built in the first 15 years. The development would include environmental features such as solar panels, bike trails, native vegetation and a ban on the use of drinkable water for watering lawns.

The rest would be built after 2025, according to the proposal. That would delay the most intense development until roads and schools could be made available. In their review, Volusia planners recommended that the development not exceed 2,287 residences until schools can handle the growth.

But is there really enough demand for the housing, now that the recession has planning experts toning down growth projections?

Storch said the proposal is designed to let development progress when the time is right. "Until then, we have a vision for what the family wants when the need is there."

The Volusia Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission will discuss the Miami Corp. proposal Sept. 22. The Volusia County Council is scheduled to vote in October. Meanwhile, the Brevard County Local Planning Agency will review the project Sept. 14, with Brevard County commissioners making their decision the next day.

If both counties agree with the proposal, the state Department of Community Affairs will review it.

9/19:

Miami Corporation is a greedy Chicago corporation that has it talons around our green heart.

Their legal reps have infiltrated our government and our growth plan with a single goal: PROFIT AT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC EXPENSE

Miami Corp is entitled, under Volusia's growth plan ordinance (comprehensive Plan) to less than 3,000 homes and NO commercial.

They have applied for 30,000 homes, industrial, commercial, retail, hospitals, hotels, water plants, roads, and schools in a No School Zone.

All of this is proposed well outside of the urban growth boundaries 71% of Volusia's voters demanded.

The win these ladies accomplished for us means that MIAMI CORPORATION MUST STILL PROVE THERE IS A DEMONSTRATED OR POPULATION NEED FOR THEIR NEW CITY.

September 18, 2009
Daytona Beach News Journal

Firm stand on 'need' for growth

Florida's governor and Cabinet withstood heavy statewide pressure by influential development and business interests to strike a blow Tuesday for responsible growth management. Their resolve in the 4-0 vote rejecting an appeal of a Marion County development proposal was strengthened by the clear counsel of Tom Pelham, the state's top growth management expert, and the courageous grassroots challenge mounted by two Marion County women -- Susan Woods and Karen Reico -- to the proposal. The women, without lawyers, exposed a gaping flaw in previous local and state officials' initial approval of an amendment to the county's growth blueprint that would permit dense development. The outcome of the appeal has broad implications for all of Florida.

When a developer petitions to have a community's growth blueprint amended, state law requires a "needs" test. It is a vital check against sprawl and other ill-considered development. In the Marion County case, an influential landowner petitioned to amend the local growth blueprint, called a comprehensive plan, to permit 800 homes on 400 rural acres currently approved for no more than 40. Marion officials approved the change, as did the state Department of Community Affairs, which Pelham heads. Woods and Reico challenged each decision, winning an administrative law judge's ruling that the amendment proposal did not comply with the state's Growth Management Act. And, they gained an ally in Pelham after pointing out that the proposal had not been subjected to the required needs test and would not pass if it was.

DCA conducted the test; the women were right. Based on population projections, the inventory of vacant housing and development projects already approved, Marion County does not need the higher-density project, the agency found. The county's existing comprehensive plan provides sufficient capacity for growth.

Developers, the Florida Farm Bureau and Florida Chamber of Commerce sought to convince the governor and Cabinet to overrule the DCA or at least hold off a final order to allow the landowner to rework the amendment proposal. Why such statewide interest? A Cabinet decision in the landowner's favor would signal that the state's top government leaders were pliable to the influence of powerful private interests, never mind a development project's demonstration of need.

But Gov. Charlie Crist and the Cabinet members stood firm, as they did in July in issuing a final order to prevent Miami-Dade County from expanding its urban growth boundary toward the Everglades National Park, again on the point that a needs test revealed the county's existing comprehensive plan provided sufficient growth capacity. Similar needs tests are in process in other counties.

It is good to know that public interest is trumping powerful private influence at the highest levels of Florida government. If only the Legislature, which gutted much of the Growth Management Act last spring, and local government councils were as conscientious regarding their comprehensive plans.

9/7/09: No, we don't need Hometown Democracy and please YOU conserver water!

September 07, 2009

Conservation cabal

Miami Corp. would raise a city out of nowhere

What's not to like about Miami Corp.'s 50-year development plan that would preserve two thirds of a 59,000-acre tract between Osteen and Oak Hill in its natural state?

Actually, plenty. Not since the Mackle Brothers raised Deltona out of upland scrub and ITT carved Palm Coast from palmetto thicket has this area seen a more ambitious plot to erect a city in the middle of nowhere. We had hoped Florida -- its landowners, developers, planners and policymakers -- would take the hard lessons from this state's pop-up urban sprawl, housing bubble follies and environmental destruction, and choose a path to prosperity that preserves its remaining rural land's character and uses.

But Miami Corp., with the blessings of local bureaucrats in Volusia and Brevard counties (the tract straddles the county line), wants changes approved in local growth blueprints to allow five residential "villages" and three so-called mixed-use commercial and residential areas with the fetching labels "town center," "workplace" and "gateway." Gateway to 29,500 houses and apartments, instead of the 2,287 single family homes allowable under existing rural land use rules. Plus 4 million square feet of shops, offices and industrial space, a hospital and eight schools. It amounts to a city of 50,000, gulping nearly 7 million gallons of water a day. Water coming from where? And arterial roads paid for by whom? Oh, the developer and county officials will work that out, never you mind.

The area is designated a "no-school zone" for the next 18 years by Volusia's Board of Education, meaning the board considers it unsuitable for the supporting services, like schools, of suburban style development. But of course any rule can be changed under special agreement. This one shouldn't be.

The landowner wants the land use changes approved soon by both county's officials -- the proposal goes before the Brevard planning board Monday, Volusia's Sept. 22 -- no doubt to avoid having it scrutinized by voters should the Florida Hometown Democracy constitutional amendment requiring such referendums pass next year. The development plan proposes to cluster the "gateway" portion initially near Edgewater and not start the next building phase until after 2025. Some say this is the only way to protect the corridor of environmentally sensitive land in south Volusia, otherwise Miami Corp. will sell off parcels piecemeal to developers for a hodgepodge build-out with more roads and very little conservation set-aside.

But neither Miami Corp. or any developer who buys its land piecemeal has an inherent right to land use changes allowing higher-density building. The counties should deny them on their face as unwanted, unneeded urban sprawl. The landowner is free to develop the property -- the largest private land holding in Volusia County -- at existing legal densities of one house per 20 acres, or one per five acres (4,692 houses) if clustered for a modest set aside of conservation land. Further subdivision should be denied thereafter.

The conservation set-aside Miami Corp. proposes sounds good by itself -- some 39,500 acres left undeveloped permanently. But some 22,000 acres is swamp, wetlands and river marsh, all within the 100-year flood plain, that should be subtracted as undevelopable land not to be credited in any formula for clustering higher housing density on the remaining upland terrain. And frankly, any straggling bit of remaining flatland scrub in this so-called environmental corridor should be off limits to bulldozers too, not just a third as proposed, considering how precious little of that unique ecosystem remains in this state. But that's unlikely. The state and Volusia County haven't established suitable protections for scrub land because it's high and dry, the easiest land to clear and build on.

Miami Corp. operates a wetland mitigation bank, sells hunting leases and grows timber on much of its holding. If those enterprises aren't sufficiently profitable, the landowner has the legal wherewithal to erect a few thousand houses in the woods. But neither county owes it the chance to maximize profits by raising another city in the middle of nowhere.

6/19:

FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY, INC.

For Immediate Release:

Florida Supreme Court Clears the Florida Hometown Democracy Initiative for the November 2010 Statewide Ballot

Contact Ross Burnaman (850)942-1474

On Wednesday, June 17, 2009, the Florida Supreme Court cleared the way for the immediate certification of Florida Hometown Democracy's proposed constitutional amendment for the November 2010 ballot. The Court’s emergency order affirmed a lower court ruling that the petition revocation scheme created by the legislature is unconstitutional.

Wednesday’s ruling comes in the wake of Florida Hometown Democracy’s announcement that it has met the constitutional requirements for statewide ballot access, by submitting 711,168 valid petitions throughout the state.

Lesley Blackner, president of Florida Hometown Democracy, stated: “We are excited that Florida voters will finally have the opportunity to have a vote on growth.” She further said: “The Hometown Democracy Amendment will simply give voters a say on how their community is planned and only applies to changes to local comprehensive land use plans. These long-term plans mean nothing when they are subject to piecemeal, willy-nilly changes. The Hometown Democracy Amendment will give voters a citizen veto over elected officials who just can’t say no to speculative developer proposals."

Now Hometown Democracy’s many supporters can now turn their attention to making sure that this amendment becomes part of the Florida Constitution. Blackner also reminded Floridians to beware of the deceitful proposed amendment hiding under the name “Floridians for Smarter Growth.” "This ridiculous proposal pretends to give a vote on growth but the devil is in the details: voters get a referendum on a comprehensive plan change only if 10% of the voters go in person to the supervisor of elections within 60 days of adoption to sign a petition. Many, many Floridians, including the home-bound and military deployed abroad, will be excluded by design from participating in any such citizen-petition process," she added.

Pd. Pol. Adv.

Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc.

Jun 17, 8:52 PM EDT

Fla. justices strike signature revocation law

By BILL KACZOR
Associated Press Writer

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- The Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a law that let voters revoke their signatures from petition drives to put constitutional amendments on statewide ballots.

In Florida, the signatures have four-year shelf lives, giving voters time to reconsider their support for ballot proposals.

The 4-2 ruling was a victory for Florida Hometown Democracy, which challenged the law. The group is sponsoring a ballot proposal that would require voter approval of changes to local comprehensive plans.

"I'm so relieved," said Palm Beach lawyer Lesley Blackner, co-founder of Hometown Democracy. "It's really been a saga to qualify this initiative for the ballot. ... Every year the Legislature has tried to destroy the initiative process."

Business and development interests that oppose to Hometown Democracy sought the signature revocation law. They say Hometown Democracy's proposal would hamper growth and depress the state's already sagging economy.

After the law was passed, Associated Industries of Florida backed an organization that helped get about 13,000 Hometown Democracy signers to take back their signatures.

"We think that Floridians should have the ability to change their mind when they are not told the truth to begin with," said Associated Industries President and CEO Barney Bishop. He said petition collectors made unsubstantiated claims of Hometown Democracy's benefits.

Bishop said his organization may ask the Legislature for a constitutional amendment permitting signature revocations and overriding the Supreme Court ruling. He also said opponents may try to use the courts to stop the measure.

"Tell 'em to be prepared," Bishop said. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander. This ain't over."

The justices did not immediately explain their ruling, writing that they'd issue a full opinion at a later date. The high court's two most reliable conservatives, Justices Charles Canady and Ricky Polston, dissented. The court's newest member, Justice James Perry, did not participate.

Hometown Democracy sought an expedited decision to avoid losing signatures if the case wasn't decided soon. Signatures have a shelf life of four years and that means some of the first ones, including Blackner's, will begin expiring if the amendment isn't certified for the 2010 ballot by Monday.

The revocation law also included a provision saying initiatives cannot be certified until Feb. 1 of an election year to make sure signers have an opportunity take back their signatures.

Tallahassee lawyer Ross Burnaman, Hometown Democracy's other co-founder, said he believes that provision no longer applies and the amendment should be immediately certified. If the state's lawyers disagree, Hometown Democracy may take that issue to court, too, Burnaman said.

The Department of State's unofficial count shows the amendment with 711,168 signatures with 676,811 needed for ballot certification. Hometown Democracy also has collected sufficient signatures in each of at least 13 of Florida's 24 congressional districts.

HELP SAVE WHAT'S LEFT OF FLORIDA...
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE to control growth!

http://www.FloridaHometownDemocracy.com

6/15:

Good things come in threes, and three good things happened for Florida Hometown Democracy this past week!

First, our numbers continue to grow:

Signatures: **Verified Totals are UNOFFICIAL until the Initiative receives certification and a ballot number.

Required for review by Attorney General:	67,683
Required to have initiative on the ballot:	676,811
** Number currently valid:	709,497
** Number currently revoked:	13,280
** Total number valid:	696,217

Second, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to expedite our pending case concerning the lawfulness of the revocation statute. The only thing keeping us from ballot certification right now is the revocation process. Stay tuned!

Third, Gov. Crist signed Senate Bill 216 into law. It will forbid local governments from engaging in propaganda campaigns at public expense to attack or promote ballot items. No more taxpayer money will be deployed against Hometown Democracy!

Other News: The fallout from SB 360, the FL legislature’s latest assault on growth management controls, continues. Fence sitters are finally realizing that even though the development industry crashed the economy and ruined much of Florida, developers still completely own the political process.

Hometown Democracy is the only reform capable of restoring some balance. As one blogger put it: “Having worked in govt for many years I felt Hometown Democracy was too radical a solution to manage growth; we have a representative democracy for these decisions, correct? However, only growth is represented at the local and state levels. Vote HD!”

And even though Hometown Democracy will be on the 2010 ballot, we must now gather our forces for our general campaign. If you’ve donated, please do so again. If you have not donated before, please join with us and do so today. We must have the financial resources to spread our message. Our opposition has spent $100,000+ so far this year just to develop their talking points and message against Hometown Democracy.

Please put a check in the mail to the PO Box below or donate here online: http://www.floridahometowndemocracy.com/donate.html

HELP SAVE WHAT'S LEFT OF FLORIDA...
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE to control growth!

http://www.FloridaHometownDemocracy.com

PO Box 636, New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170-0636.

Pd.pol.adv.byFloridaHometownDemocracy,Inc,PAC

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edphealy14061409jun14,0,7014747.column

OrlandoSentinel.com

Local elected officials to blame for Hometown Democracy's support

Jane Healy

June 14, 2009

They may see themselves as victims, but local elected officials have no one to blame but themselves for last week's announcement that backers of Florida Hometown Democracy, a proposed constitutional amendment to manage growth, have garnered enough signatures to get it on the 2010 ballot.

Here are three reasons why the Hometown Democracy movement is gaining steam:

REASON NO. 1: Voters are beginning to realize that from the get-go politicians never really cared about managing growth.

No doubt, city and county commissioners across Florida talked a good game 24 years ago after the Legislature passed its first, supposedly tough law to manage out-of-control growth. But their actions say otherwise.

It took Orange County commissioners a whole six months before it ignored its own plan for where and when it would grow and allowed 2,900 rural acres in southeast Orange to become urban. Couldn't there at least have been an appearance that they cared?

Not content with that, six months later the county transformed another 3,790 rural acres into the Lake Nona subdivision.

Anyone wondering why that area in southeast Orange County now has a fire station that answered a total of 61 calls in eleven months can look back to that 1987 decision.

By approving a development so far from the rest of the urban area — just north of Osceola County — they had to create costly fire and police services that the rest of us have to pay for.

Oh, well. At least the developers then were able to make their quick profit before they got out of town.

The commission rushed to approve the development because it was afraid the city of Orlando would annex the land.

Well, it was right. The city did end up annexing it eight years later, and now they won't even share fire stations. Are we all happy now?

REASON NO. 2: Voters realize that politicians still haven't gotten the message.

No one has to go far to find the proof of that, either. Osceola County fought with the state for two years, trying to expand its boundaries for urban development even though it couldn't possibly provide all the necessary roads and other services.

Now the county wants to expand its urban area again by adding the 42,000-acre Destiny project in remote Yeehaw Junction.

The Osceola County Commission was actually Destiny's fall-back position. The developer first wanted to come under a state program that allows farmland to be partially developed.

The state saw that for what it was — a ploy for another unneeded subdivision. So Destiny turned to the county commission, knowing the good 'ol boys were still good for it. And, yep, they were.

Then look at Edgewater commissioners in Volusia County , who want to allow 8,500 homes in the county's hyper-sensitive rural area for another "new town" called Restoration. Of course, the area doesn't have enough roads, schools, water or sewer to accommodate the development.

REASON NO. 3: Hometown Democracy's opponents keep trotting out ridiculous arguments against it.

A favorite pitch by opponents is that voters in Volusia's tiny Orange City would have to go to the polls 467 times a year if the amendment is approved.

Wait just one minute. Isn't the real issue here that Orange City changed its plan an incredible 467 times in a single year? The city only has about 7,000 residents.

The only two possible explanations are that (1) Orange City never took its growth plan seriously, or, (2) it caves in every time a developer asks for a change. Maybe the answer is for Orange City and other local governments to actually live with the plans they approve.

Now that's a change residents could live with.

You can contact Jane Healy at janehealy49@gmail.com. She'd like to hear about public officials who need their feet kept to the fire.

HELP SAVE WHAT'S LEFT OF FLORIDA...
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE to control growth!
http://www.FloridaHometownDemocracy.com

3/15:

The Legislature Makes the Case for FHD!

Just when you thought the Florida Legislature couldn’t go any lower, they kick the floor out of the bottom! By now you’ve heard the news about Senator Mike Bennett’s plans to abolish the Department of Community Affairs, which oversees the legality of proposed changes to local growth plans. Seems recently the DCA has actually objected to a couple of particularly egregious proposed developer schemes.

By the way. Senator Bennett is a developer…. "I chase real estate deals," he said. "That's what I do." He doesn’t like for his fellow developers to lose out on a juicy deal….he also likes to profit off Florida taxpayers:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20060605/NEWS/606050360

This demonstrates our point that the Florida Legislature has no intention of ever allowing for real growth control. It doesn’t matter that the Ponzi scheme of overbuilding has crashed the economy. Gotta Build! Last year, DCA chief Tom Pelham attempted to head off the full court press to destroy his Department when he offered up a compromise to the Legislature – the “Citizens’ Bill of Rights”…remember? It has gone the way of the dodo bird.

The growth boys intend to keep total control of the local process and politics because that is where the developer power lies. All they have to do is control a majority on a city or county council and presto: the fix is in. Editorials around the state are pointing out that local commissions hardly ever say no to developers. The truth finally comes out! This is the exactly why we need Hometown Democracy.

What if the Senator and his developer buddies in the legislature are successful and DCA oversight is abolished…. what would that mean for Florida Hometown Democracy? The Legislature cannot abolish comprehensive planning because it is part of the Florida Constitution. Hometown Democracy is the only reform with the power to take on the growth machine. That’s why they fear and hate it so much.

JOIN WITH US! We need your continuing support. Be sure to spread the word and send a donation. You can contribute on our website or send a check. November 2010 will be here before you know it, and we intend to have FHD on the ballot.

Developers' dream, Florida 's nightmare

Published Tuesday, March 10, 2009

When a Treasure Island developer wanted to fill acres of Taylor County wetlands and dredge a 2-mile canal through an aquatic preserve, the Florida Department of Community Affairs objected. The state's growth management agency stood firm after the local county commissioners caved, and the canal and marina were scrapped. The developer still seeks to destroy 44 acres of wetlands to build hundreds of condominium units, a hotel, commercial space and a golf course.

Consider this exhibit No. 1 of many to refute the falsehoods being circulated in Tallahassee to justify abolishing the Department of Community Affairs. A House committee, under the guise of economic development, is considering a bill today that would eliminate the agency and eviscerate the state's ability to manage growth. It would shift what's left to the Department of State, an agency that already has its hands full with elections, corporation records, the state archives and cultural affairs. Similar efforts are under way in the Senate. Gov. Charlie Crist and more enlightened legislators have to stand up to the business interests, developers and lawmakers behind this assault on growth management.

The bill sponsors contend the Department of Community Affairs has been an arbitrary impediment to development in Florida and is responsible for helping plunge this state into the economic recession. That is a spurious argument. Their real intent is to dismantle what few constraints Florida puts on growth by handing more responsibility to local governments, which are far less likely to say no to developers. In Taylor County , the state hasn't halted the offensive development. It simply made sure the public's interests — including significant questions about the project's impact in the flood-prone area — were considered as required by law. The county commissioners were all too willing to ignore that and side with the developer.

Legislators behind these devious efforts are ignoring that Florida 's permitting requirements, most of which were in place in the recent boom, have not stalled growth. In fact, developers and loose financial regulations led to overbuilding, leaving Florida with 300,000 vacant homes.

Growth management regulation does need to be improved. DCA Secretary Tom Pelham agrees the state review of significant development proposals takes too long. And heshares the concerns that a 2006 law requiring transportation improvements makes it too difficult for inner-city projects to gain approval. Addressing those issues would be in everyone's best interest.

Originally appeared on News-Journal Online at
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN39030909.htm

March 09, 2009

Economy's no excuse to give developers free pass

Last April, Florida was home to 18.8 million people. Next month, the forecasters predict, the state will be home to -- 18.8 million people. That's zero-growth for the first time since the state began estimating population in the middle of the last century. Demographers say Florida should expect no more than 1 percent growth during the next four years.

Population growth is the engine that drives the state's economy. Seeing that engine stalled seems to have sent several legislators into a panic, unless that is, they're not panicked at all but merely taking advantage of anxious times to press huge favors for developers at nasty expense to the public.

These legislators, led by Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, chairman of the Senate Community Affairs Committee, are shepherding legislation to halt impact fee collections on developers for three years and rewrite rules to diminish state oversight of growth management. They say the impact fee moratorium will spur construction and boost the economy. Never mind that study after study shows impact fees have negligible bearing on home sales and that, in their absence, the cost of new growth shifts to existing residents. The state is too far behind on road, school, water supply and other infrastructure improvements as it is. Worse than the impact fee measure, Bennett's committee has passed S.B. 360, as has the Senate Transportation Committee. The bill appears headed for a floor vote.

The bill's sponsors propose to address the failure of the state's growth management laws to curb sprawl and rural development by providing incentives to stimulate growth in denser urban areas. A commendable purpose, but a wolf hides under that fleece. The bill would exempt urban areas with more than 1,000 people per square mile and seven entire counties with populations of more than 1 million from all reviews of Developments of Regional Impact and state plan amendments while dropping transportation concurrency requirements. (Neighboring Seminole County exceeds that density now; Volusia and Flagler do not.) Additionally, development projects would be subject to only one local public hearing. And state review of plan amendments would be dropped for certain Rural Areas of Critical Economic Concern. (What part of rural Florida won't soon be an area of critical economic concern? Katie, bar the door.)

Although the exemptions might help promote infill development inside cities, they also would striphigh-population counties of the ability to limit growth in their remaining rural and suburban fringe areas. Developers must be smacking their lips.

Bennett faults Florida 's growth management laws for failing to curb sprawl. Actually, the laws aren't as much the problem as the lax oversight and enforcement of them at city, county and state levels. Proposals to loosen rules to favor developers may find more favor during the economic recession, but are legislators' memories so short that they've forgotten what happens in this state during boom times? If they pass S.B. 360 and the impact fee moratorium, prepare to watch developers line up for their permits, sit on them and then run roughshod over communities across Florida once the markets loosen up. This is bad business; Bennett's bills should die.

HELP SAVE WHAT'S LEFT OF FLORIDA...
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE to control growth!

http://www.FloridaHometownDemocracy.com

************************************************

NEW:

10/4/06

THE CLOCK HAS RUN OUT - the U.S. Senate has failed to enact federal eminent domain reform to protect your homes, small businesses, farms and churches.

After H.R. 4128 - which was passed overwhelmingly by the House last October by a vote of 376-38 - languished in the Senate Judiciary Committee for over ten months, Senator James Inhofe introduced S. 3873, an identical piece of legislation that bypassed committee and was sent to the full Senate. Regardless, Senator Bill Frist refused to listen to the American people and allow a vote on the bill - even though ending eminent domain abuse is one of the most popular issues nationwide (see http://www.castlecoalition.org/resources/kelo_polls.html), and even though 30 states have passed legislation countering the Kelo decision (see http://www.castlecoalition.org/legislation/passed/index.html).

However, the Senate has a second chance to do what the U.S. Supreme Court failed to do last year and finally protect your property from tax-hungry governments and land-hungry developers. Congress' lame duck session is scheduled to run from Monday, November 13 through Wednesday, November 22. During this time, H.R. 4128/S. 3873 can be brought up for a vote. It is essential that we do everything we can before November 13 to ensure that the Senate knows how important this issue is to citizens across the country.

We will be contacting you in the coming weeks to make your voices heard, but here's what you can do in the meantime:

1. Sign up your neighbors, friends and family for the Castle Coalition. This is essential - there is strength in numbers. Every new Castle Coalition member is one more voice that can make their support for federal eminent domain reform heard. Membership is free, we don't share your information and you can unsubscribe at any time. Tell your friends they can sign up here: http://www.castlecoalition.org/join/.

2. Contact your senators and urge them to support H.R. 4128 and S. 3873. Their phone numbers are listed here: http://castlecoalition.org/legislation/senators.html, or you can e-mail them through this link: https://action.popuvox.com/default.aspx?actionID=286 Remember: even though the clock has run out, there's still a chance for overtime. This legislation will not pass without your help, so get ready and stay tuned for one final push in November!Sincerely,

Christina Walsh
Assistant Castle Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice

*************************************************************************************

NEW: 10/4/06

The Castle Coalition Presents the CastleWatch Month in Review ........................................................................

IN THIS ISSUE:

           1.   BOTANICAL GARDEN WANTS TO GROW INTO NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY
           2.   BLIGHTED CALIFORNIA
         3.   BB&T’S PRINCIPLED STAND
           4.   LONG BRANCH HOMEOWNERS FILE APPEAL IN EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE CASE
           5.   IJ WILL REPRESENT RIVIERA BEACH HOMEOWNERS
                ...AND MORE...

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

1. BOTANICAL GARDEN WANTS TO GROW INTO NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY

“William Peppes spent over 30 years tending to his inherited property, keeping
his home in good condition and nursing his precious locust trees that lined his
property. But beginning in 2000, he began fighting a battle against the City of
St. Louis and the Botanical Gardens, for his property-the City even bulldozed
his trees. But he fought back, and turned the experience around into a rebirth
of nature for himself.”

http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/articles/9_6_06.html

........................................................................

2. BLIGHTED CALIFORNIA

“Activist Casey Cambra might be young and doesn’t yet own the property he stands
to inherit from his grandmother, but he knows that the use of eminent domain to
hand over property to land-hungry developers is wrong. That is why he has become
an activist in Santa Rosa, educating his fellow citizens on the looming danger
that may force them out of their businesses along Santa Rosa Avenue.”

http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/articles/9_15_06.html

        ........................................................................

        3. BB&T’S PRINCIPLED STAND

“There is only one bank in the nation to date that takes a definitive stand against
eminent domain abuse-BB&T. Employing the principles already outlined within the
company’s mission, President John Allison announced in January that they would not
fund any development projects involved with the use of eminent domain. Standing on
the side of property owners, the results for BB&T have been astounding.”

http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/articles/9_29_06.html

........................................................................

4. LONG BRANCH HOMEOWNERS FILE APPEAL IN EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE CASE

“The dedicated and passionate residents of Long Branch, N.J. formed an alliance called
MTOTSA (an acronym for the streets Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue),
then fought the City against a serious case of eminent domain abuse. IJ staff attorneys
Jeff Rowes and Scott Bullock are representing the residents in their appeal against the
City in the fight to save their adorable waterfront homes.”

Press Release: http://www.ij.org/private_property/longbranch/8_30_06pr.html

CastleWatch Article: A COASTAL TOWN FIGHTS BACK

http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/articles/1_26_06.html

        ........................................................................

        5. IJ WILL REPRESENT RIVIERA BEACH HOMEOWNERS

“IJ client Princess Wells is joined by many of her neighbors in Riviera Beach, Fla. to
fight a gigantic case of eminent domain abuse: the mayor along with his greedy developer
friends seek to replace the waterfront town’s working class homes with a luxury area for
the rich. IJ staff attorney Bert Gall is working closely with the residents to ensure
this tragedy does not occur."

http://www.ij.org/private_property/riviera_beach/9_26_06pr.html

........................................................................

See the “Blighted” Home or Business of the Week
http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/bogusblight/index.html

See CastleWatch’s Latest News and Features
http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/index.html

Stop Eminent Domain Abuse with the Castle Coalition’s FREE Survival Guide
http://www.castlecoalition.org/survival_guide/index.html

........................................................................

Respectfully,
Melanie Harmon
Editor, CastleWatch
www.castlecoalition.org
castlewatch@castlecoalition.org

Ok, now on to two articles from Mr. Magee:

Volusia Growth Management Commission (VGMC) is a 21 member representative advisory board funded by the residents of Volusia County . It discusses and possibly illuminates resolutions to conflict incurred when adjacent comprehensive plans from adjoining local governments negatively impact in their long term plans. It has no enforcement powers, just advice and influence. Neither is it a mediator. Some folk may say it is a ‘talk shop’ with no teeth however I wish to incite you to develop yourselves, or at least suggest to broaden your present remit and seek a greater sphere of influence by going where only brave members dare.

The advocates of the Smart Growth Report suggest you pack your bags.

The cities are not happy with your role because they want to be in control of their own development destiny in fast developing Volusia.

The media continually refers to you as the ‘ghost of Christmas past’ because you have outlived your use fullness.

My oh my folks. I look at you all and I am acutely aware of the meaning of ‘endangered species’.

My submission this evening might be interpreted by some as a wake-up call. Like Robin Williams in “Good morning Vietnam“. Others of you might choose to ignore what I pose, some claim it’s not your remit and others of you attempt to shoot the messenger. However I wish to state briefly my concerns for VGMC and the current rash of development taking place in Volusia. I trust you will be reactive afterwards…………….when I am far from here.

You must advise the political masters in the County that you wish to broaden your remit to that of an honest broker in the current climate of run-a-way development within the County. It is what is lacking when the ‘players’ sit down to carve the fast disappearing carcass of beautiful Volusia. There is no honest broker, honest enough and strong enough readily available, willing to put their head above the parapet.

There has to be a reputable honest broker available to exercise common sense between the ‘players’ when they attempt to achieve financial gain at the cost of us all.

The cities are on a frenzied diet of annexation to satisfy their addiction to fill their tax base with as much unincorporated rural Volusia as they can grab before the neighboring city gets there first. They think they are playing ‘Texas hold ‘em’, and the first to blink loses. They claim they are annexing to provide good places for the baby boomers to relocate here when they retire to have a good quality of life in sunny Florida. However, when they run these service lines of water/sewer/services/schools etc. into rural Volusia they exercise fiscal prudence. In lay men’s talk that means get as many subdivisions on your system as possible to maximize return on your financial investment. Another terminology might best describe them as developers. Service developers. That fact inadvertently leads to the cities advocating smart growth as touted by the Smart Growth Report. The Smart Growth Report was funded in no small measure by the home builders of Volusia.

The home builders of Volusia want to provide new homes for the masses of arriving baby boomers. Little houses ( or should I say large houses) built in rows and they all look the same. Their idea of utopia is, clusters however let me remind you that clusters are sub-divisions and sub-divisions are sprawl no matter how you dress it up. The home builder developers prefer green field sites rather than brown field sites because of the greater return of profit through greater building density and low costs. They are not interested in building ‘ranchette’ homes in the rural community. Economies of scale are not easily available there and anyway only 2% of rural Americans earn their living on the farm now. Not a market the home builders see as a priority.

There are winners/losers in every form of development however the biggest loser of all is the fast disappearing Florida wetland environment and wildlife.

This apocalyptic trend has to end. Someone has to call halt. We have to develop a common interest that satisfy’s all the players. We have to develop TRUST. I submit VGMC must present itself as a candidate for this roll. VGMC will have to reconstitute itself to do so however, it must present itself. There is no more important cause in Volusia County at the moment. However, is VGMC brave enough to respond to the call and is VGMC willing to enter the fray?

What can VGMC do?

I submit you can;

1. Advise Volusia County that it needs a new comprehensive plan agreed between all the local governments. One that identifies growth boundaries’ agreeable to most We do not have one.

2. Advise everyone that the new comprehensive plan must be adhered to and enforced. It would help to have all the comprehensive plans in the County/cities running on the same time scale along side this new plan.

3. The new plan must be amendment resistant by ‘seekers of variances’.

4. Land change use applications for annexed properties that choose to jump boundaries must retain the land use the property held before application.

5. Presently there are 5 governing agencies with at least 5 different ordinance standards pertaining to the rural environment and wetlands in Volusia County. They are:

US Army Corps of Engineers

St Johns River Water Management District

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Volusia County Environmental Management Division

Local city/town governments.

Our agreed new County wide Comp. Plan has to reflect common standards in ordinances to achieve a common goal.

6. Environmental mitigation credits must be exercised on-site and not shuffled off to Alaska or deepest everglade cross roads ,Florida.

VGMC members, I do not wish to infringe further upon your advisory role so I will conclude and allow you to exercise your minds.

However, I will conclude by reiterating:

We need a plan

We need a comprehensive plan

We need a comprehensive plan that is agreed.

VGMC has a role to play………………………….Start playing.

Aiden. Magee, Volusia Flagler Environmental Action Committee. Inc. aiden.magee@hotmail.com

28 January 2006

And here is number 2 from Mr. Magee:

Sir/madam,

On behalf of the Volusia Flagler Environmental Action Committee, Inc. I would like to reject publicly the recommendations of the Smart Growth Report as advocated. This report is fundamentally flawed if it is aimed at protecting the environment. This report is being referred to by stakeholders, developers and those politicians sympathetic to the developers cause as being the 'Smart Growth' way forward in Volusia County.

I submit the report is the 'Dumb Growth' way forward because it promotes clusters, which are sprawl.

Might I remind you that the recent controversial ballot initiative on boundaries to restrict urban growth in Volusia resulted in 73% of the electorate favoring the idea. The electorate rejected sprawl.

The Smart Growth Report advocates development throughout unincorporated Volusia via clusters.

A developers utopia, I say. Their submission alludes to the idea that cluster development is good for the environment. In reality, clusters of high density development would have great detrimental effect on the environment. These clusters would develop into satellite towns, and eventually into cities because those clusters would have to be serviced by grocery stores and other service providers such as churches, schools, medical/emergency service providers, and of course water/sewer and road provision. Where water/sewer and roads lead, more development follows. This is not rocket science. The electorate knows this and demands curtailment of this policy. The developers, including their entourage of sympathetic stakeholders and Smart Growth Report advocates, seem to have missed the message.

The Smart Growth Report recommends that the Volusia Conservation Corridor in the center of our County be further endangered by weakening the provision of protection it presently enjoys. They propose including it in map "A" which should attract the highest degree of protection however not one immune to development. Might I remind you that the Volusia electorate approved to tax themselves twice through the provision of bonds to fund the purchase of this land so as to establish this Conservation Corridor. It must be protected and enlarged to function as a sustainable project administered by Volusia Forever.

It is further alluded that map "B" identifies where growth must be directed to appropriate areas. Would it be fair to say that those areas most suitable for development would be where developers have already purchased the land and are waiting for approval to develop? The Report does not take cognizance of the fact that within this area "B" there are presently comprehensive plans painfully developed over years with great debate and deliberation identifying Environmentally Sensitive Corridors in many neighborhoods including Deep Creek, Little Haw Creek, the Tomoka River system, Spruce Creek and Spruce Swamp, Turnbull Creek and Turnbull Hammock. Is this an oversight by the writers of the Report or are we to believe these protected areas are now fair game for development under the guise of Smart Growth?

The Report goes on to recognize the dilemma that presently exists between the cities and the County.

The cities feel compelled to expand their tax base by annexing unincorporated land inside their boundaries. This has the same adverse effect upon the environment as developers advocating clusters because it inevitably leads to installing water/ sewer and roads to service those areas. This practice has to cease.

In order for it to cease there has to be agreement between the cities and the County to agree to a comprehensive plan and to regulate and enforce that plan. One possible way to resolve this dilemma would be to retain the zoning status of the parcel seeking annexation. The County Council Commissioners have pledged in section 202.3 of the Charter that they shall protect the environment. There is no purpose in compiling a comprehensive plan without enforcing that plan vigorously. Legislation has to be provided that is enforceable. Unlike today where the comprehensive plans that are in effect are abused through the provision of small scale amendments to satisfy the whims of supporters of politicians who refuse to stand up to the plate and exercise their mandate.

This is not going to be an easy task for any body to implement however it has to be achieved.

Property rights of all those affected have to be protected and fair compensation offered for the advancement of any agreement, however, it is not a task that should be undertaken by a group of 3 County Council politicians and 3 mayors plus a school board member as suggested by the Smart Growth Report.

This suggestion does not acknowledge that schools follow development. Providing school services to a community already established is the job of the school board. It is imperative that the schools board be fully briefed, informed and involved where a need exists for establishing schools, however, they have no mandate to make decisions where growth will be directed. They ought not be directing such major policy creation.

It is also naive to suggest that the electorate will be swayed by the constant reference to the term promises throughout the Report. Have the stakeholders promoting acceptance of this Report ever been on a promise? Obviously not. There is no recourse when a promise is broken. Is that where the stakeholders want to lead us? To a mythical land called Oz, full of promises? No thank you. I will refrain from going there.

There are strengths and weaknesses in the current VGMC system. It might be possible do develop a more authoritative body from that concept that can regulate any arrived at agreement between the cities and the County. The more participatory involvement by representatives of the community is certainly the more democratic way of plotting our future. There is a definite need for checks and balances to provide greater protection for the environment. Environmentalists are presently not represented, however, they should be.

The lead/supreme authority in all these negotiations would have to reflect who we the electorate pay our taxes to for the administration of services within the County. That is the County Council. The County Council have more than adequate qualified staff to advise them and guide them through the problematic times ahead, however, that advice must be aimed at achieving sufficient sustainable and responsible growth in harmony with our environment, to enhance the living standards of the electorate and tax payer. A difficult mix to achieve, however one worth striving for.

What is sustainable and responsible growth? Might I direct you to the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development AGENDA 21. This web site illustrates what most of the rest of the World has been doing in this regard for the past number of years. Again it is not rocket science. It is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally between organizations of the United Nations system, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans impact the environment. Unfortunately the USA has not signed up for it. However there is no need for redeveloping the wheel. Volusia County can use these guide lines and proven successes in charting our future instead of blindly following the calls for Smart Growth as advocated by this flawed Smart Growth Report. Put one hundred lawyers in a room and ask them to define Smart Growth and you will end up with one hundred different definitions. The one that will prevail however is that one which will reflect the interests of those willing to spend the most dollars on the outcome, that will realize their investment. I will allow you to make your own call on who that will be.

Finally, the Smart Growth Report advocates put great importance upon their belief that the Charter Review Committee are considering various ways to implement their smart growth. This is not the remit of the Charter Review Committee. The remit of the Charter Review is to review the Current Volusia County Charter. Not to consider ways to implement this ill conceived and flawed Smart Growth Report.

I offer you this critique as a instrument to stimulate debate in ways we all in Volusia County can enhance our environment. By getting involved in protecting our environment and offering possible solutions. It is not an exercise in politician bashing either. As an environmentalist I wish to distance our movement from the often heard cry that environmentalists are always screaming no, no, no to everything involving growth and development. I support sustainable, responsible growth that is in harmony with our environment and leads to a better quality of life here in Volusia. I support our elected representatives in the difficult choice of public service they have chosen. I also pray that they will be blessed with wisdom and courage in the exercise of their mandate.

Thanking you,

Aiden Magee -- Volusia Flagler Environmental Action Committee, Inc.

***********************************************************************

NEW: Doesn't this sound familiar?

Candidates detail growth, traffic plans

Mark Schlueb
Sentinel Staff Writer

February 24, 2006

Four years ago, the biggest issues in Orlando's northwestern neighborhoods were growth and traffic.

Only one thing has changed: There is more of both.

As five people battle to represent District 3 on the Orlando City Council, voters' cries for relief from increasing real-estate development and the traffic that comes with it have been loud at forums and community meetings. The candidates -- Bob Carr Jr., Jeff Horn, John Ruffier, Robert Stuart and incumbent Vicki Vargo -- each have their own ideas about how to answer those cries.

Construction along one of the district's main thoroughfares, Edgewater Drive, has fueled the debate over how much growth is appropriate for areas outside downtown. The Wellesley, when it is completed on the corner of Edgewater and Smith Street, will be a mix of condos and retail space -- and, at seven stories, College Park's tallest building.

The same developer plans another building on property along Edgewater between Yale and Harvard streets. Dubbed The Ivy, the project has angered many residents who say such a large building clashes with the character of the neighborhood. "Trim the Ivy" signs have popped up in front yards.

Some candidates and opponents of the project have accused Vargo of doing nothing to stem development. Vargo argues that she has told city planners to be strict with The Ivy, but zoning adopted years ago allows buildings as tall as seven stories. Besides, many merchants welcome the condos, she said.

As for traffic, Vargo, 51, favors more streetscapes, funded with state money. Trees planted on the roadside cause cars to slow down through residential areas, she said.

Vargo's challengers have their own ideas about growth and traffic.

Carr, a teacher, said he decided to run because of a City Council decision two years ago to rezone land for 160 town homes, despite objections from the school superintendent, who complained it would crowd nearby schools.

Carr, 52, said the city must work to reduce the impact of downtown development on surrounding neighborhoods.

"Had I been commissioner when The Ivy came along, it would have been incumbent on me to side with the citizens who said you need to slow down and take another look," Carr said.

Horn, a tennis coach, was one of the earliest opponents of the recent Edgewater development; he was one of only three people at a public hearing where commissioners approved The Wellesley two years ago. Such projects wouldn't be so intrusive if the city didn't allow changes to zoning maps and setback requirements, he said.

Horn, 44, said he won't accept money from developers or the construction industry. He returned a $200 contribution from The Ivy's developer.

"Nobody has my record of having spoken out in opposition," Horn said.

Ruffier, 34, said some development is inevitable. But his expertise as a land-use attorney will help him push smarter growth and reduce the impact on established neighborhoods, he said. Ruffier advised residents who opposed The Ivy on their options.

"Property rights are important, but it's the city's responsibility to question developers when exceptions are being asked for to make sure those changes aren't going to negatively affect the neighborhood around it," Ruffier said.

Stuart, director of the Christian Service Center, said planners should build consensus on the type of growth residents want along various corridors -- including Edgewater -- and then stick to it.

"You can't just sit on your hands. You have to be aggressive about planning," Stuart said. "You have to look at what developers can legally do, and what is right to do."

Stuart, 52, also said the way the city deals with cut-through traffic is ineffective. Decisions about speed bumps and other traffic-calming devices are made street-by-street, and often just push cars onto adjacent blocks, he said. Plans should be made neighborhood-wide, he said.

The five will face off March 14. If none wins a majority, the top two candidates will move to a runoff April 11.

Mark Schlueb can be reached at mschlueb@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5417.

*****************************************************************************

NEW:

What Is The News Journal Stand On Eminent Domain?

The following editorial appeared in the Daytona Beach News Journal October 15, 2005. A reply was sent answering the Editorial, but was not printed. The excuse given was almost as lame as the editorial itself. Newspapers, were at one time considered, “The Champion of the People,” now they are the “The Champion of a Certain Few”. The common slob (including myself) the taxpayer, does not stand a chance, when even our Champion will not fight for us.

Over the past two weeks, there has been a hugh eminent domain case going on in Riviera Beach , Fl. Over 2000 homes and 6000 people are going to lose everything they have worked so hard for, and will have their property taken, with the help and blessing of the government, and the private developers. You say you didn’t know or hear about this! Well, guess what, “The “Champion of the People” did not write a single paragraph, a single word, nothing, nil, nada in the paper. Something sounds out of order here; maybe they do not want the people to know and have time to organize and fight back, or maybe they think that taking a person’s private property, and giving it to a private developer, is the right thing to do.

True eminent domain does not take private property and give it to private developers. We all understand if property is needed for schools, roads, hospitals, fire or police stations, they are acceptable reasons, if a current property evaluation is paid. We should fight for everyone’s right to own private property, whether it’s in our city, the city next door, in our state, or in the Nation.

Do not feel It’s not affecting you personally, do not feel you should not get involved, because sooner or later, it will be in your backyard .

DeBary options
Eminent domain ban reckless public policy

Last update: October 15, 2005

Before the DeBary Charter Review Committee goes off half-cocked, there's something residents should know: Nobody's coming to take your house. Developers aren't lining up at the river bridge to sweep down on the town and muscle the council to condemn your property. The charter committee, in proposing to codify in the city charter a prohibition of the use of eminent domain to facilitate any private development, has fallen for a conservative scare campaign based on fiction, not fact, in a much misunderstood and very much misrepresented opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court considered a Connecticut case in which the city of New London exercised its power of eminent domain -- to condemn private property for public purpose, justly compensating the owners. The city did so to make way for a large redevelopment project to save a dying economy. One homeowner sued. In a sharply divided opinion, the court majority said states have the right to broadly determine public benefit within the Fifth Amendment's "public use" clause in taking private property. The court said it is also the right of local and state governments to limit the conditions for use of that power. Conservative property rights advocates immediately decried the decision as carte blanche for local governments to clear entire neighborhoods to enrich private developers with empty promises of economic revival.

That eminent domain can be misused, has been misused, is not in dispute. But seldom, if ever, has that been the case in Volusia and Flagler counties, where government leaders are reluctant to exercise the power, and then only as a last resort after protracted negotiations with holdout property owners. And never in DeBary. So why the fever pitch for locking eminent domain away in the city charter and throwing away the key? The answer is a growing dissent over class inequality, a middle-class feeling that government leaders are catering to the interests of the rich. Redevelopment, even when it benefits the community as a whole, is perceived as a scheme to further enrich developers. But why, other than being overly generous with tax incentives, should anyone care how huge a developer's profits are, if the redevelopment restores blight, raises surrounding property values and bolsters the local economy? This distrust is obvious in the present hysteria over condominium development, especially in Volusia County's coastal cities. But, in fact, with a few exceptions, the condos and other private development in those cities resulted from private negotiations between buyers and sellers, with no intervention by government. Where eminent domain has occurred, it has, with rare exception, moved along without a pitched battle, leaving the property owner fairly compensated and relocated.

The DeBary committee proposal is not only ill-conceived, it is reckless. Suppose, to use an unlikely but for explanatory purposes useful scenario, the electric power company that provides much of the tax base for the city packed up and left. Residential property taxpayers would have to make up the loss to city coffers or lose needed services. Residential development would soon come to a screeching halt. People would lose jobs. Now suppose a major research corporation said it would buy the vacant property, build its headquarters and labs there and hire 1,500 workers and managers from the local populace. The only hitch is that the company also insists that the project include redevelopment of a small adjoining neighborhood to accommodate key scientists and their families in a campus-like residential setting. It is the only property suitable for the campus. Two of the five existing homeowners refuse to sell at any price. With the charter provision the city is contemplating, the City Council would be powerless to respond in the greater interest of most of its residents and business owners.

A more sensible response to the current property rights scare campaign suggests that the council review the city's land-use and development codes to assure fairness and balance in real estate changes and environmental protection. The council could tighten its own redevelopment restrictions and work with state lawmakers to review and revise current blight definitions. But given the judicious and rare use of eminent domain by local governments, the most sensible response to the current scare would be to leave well enough alone.

This is my response to the News Journal's editorial.

Regarding the editorial dated 10/15/2005 "DEBARY OPTIONS-Eminent Domain Ban Reckless Public Policy" I personally attended the DeBary Charter Review Committee meeting and there were no press there and very few participants, so I wonder where this writer’s source of information is coming from?

The editorial states, "The charter committee, in proposing to codify in the city charter a prohibition of the use of eminent domain to facilitate any private development, has fallen for a conservative scare campaign based on fiction" - I wonder what is frightening about protecting the citizens, businesses and their properties?

The second statement is erroneous, "That eminent domain can be misused, has been misused, is not in dispute. But seldom, if ever, has that been the case in Volusia and Flagler counties, where government leaders are reluctant to exercise the power, and then only as a last resort after protracted negotiations with holdout property owners. And never in DeBary." Perhaps they never did "use" eminent domain, but that certainly was their intent in 2004 when 21% of our fair city (1,125 homes and businesses) were declared "slum and blight" in order for create a CRA. It took the citizens of DeBary to show up en-mass (along with a lawyer) to defeat this proposal. So how can the author of "DeBary Options" editorial claim "NEVER IN DEBARY?"

In summation, the author pronounces, "The DeBary committee proposal is not only ill-conceived, it is reckless. Suppose, to use an unlikely but for explanatory purposes useful scenario, the electric power company that provides much of the tax base for the city packed up and left. Residential property taxpayers would have to make up the loss to city coffers or lose needed services. Residential development would soon come to a screeching halt. People would lose jobs." - NOW WHO IS USING "SCARE TACTICS?????

To the anonymous author of the editorial, some research or attendance at city council meetings would have been in order before writing about the Charter Review Committee’s operating with "reckless abandon."

Lenny Marks

DeBary , FL

This is the reply I received from the News Journal giving the reason why they would not print my rebuttal.

Mr. Marks,

Apology accepted but really not necessary. Frankly, eminent domain is such a touchy subject that

It seems even to transcend the nasty party politics that so many people enjoy these days.

Eminent domain seems to pit homeowner against renter with no one caring any more which

Political party is in power.

(And I still don’t know if we had anyone at the meeting. On this one, Id rather keep my head down then ask.)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NEW:

This just in from Castle Coalition.

Friends: One year ago today, Susette Kelo and the Institute for Justice stood before the United States Supreme Court, arguing for a simple and fundamental right: the right to own one's property. Months later, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that private property could be seized through eminent domain on the mere promise of private commercial development. But the ruling has served more as a beginning than an end, igniting an unprecedented nationwide property rights revolt that continues to grow. More than 43 states are working towards eminent domain reform, with a handful having already passed legislation to curb the abuses the Kelo decision allows. Activists from around the country are standing up to tax-hungry governments and land-hungry developers, telling them "Hands off my home!" And Susette Kelo still lives in her little pink house alongside her neighbors, fighting day-by-day to remain in her dream home that was condemned for a private developer. But Susette's home isn't the only one that hangs in the balance - the Kelo decision puts all of our homes, businesses, churches and farms on the chopping block. And unless we continue to push for eminent domain reform in the legislatures and at the grassroots, anyone could be next. So here's what you can do TODAY to ensure YOUR home or small business is safe: FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO FRIENDS and tell them to join the Castle Coalition! They can do so here: http://www.castlecoalition.org/join/index.htmlCONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS and tell them Hands Off My Home! You can do so here: https://action.popuvox.com/default.aspx?actionID=214

Let us know how you'd like to get involved! Want to pass out brochures in your neighborhood? Link to the Castle Coalition on your website? Run a table at your state's fair? Host a screening of The Castle? Reply to this email and we'll give you the materials you need to stop eminent domain abuse!

We thank you for your support and dedication to the fight against eminent domain abuse. We can't do it without you, and with your help, we continue to look forward to a day where once again, every man's home is his castle.
Best,

Christina Walsh
Assistant Castle Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 21, 2006 CONTACT:
John E. Kramer or Lisa Knepper
(703) 682-9320 One Year After Kelo Argument
National Property Rights Revolt Still Going Strong 43 State Legislatures Work Toward Eminent Domain Reform Arlington, Va.-The little pink house in New London, Conn., that started a nationwide property rights revolt still stands one year after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments and then eventually ruled that it could be torn down for private development.But the future of that home-and of every home, small business, church and farm-remains in question. Will state and local legislatures change their laws to protect private property from eminent domain abuse (where the government’s power of eminent domain is used for private gain in the guise of creating more jobs or increasing taxes), or will lobbyists representing developers and cities block meaningful reform?

On February 22, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the now-infamous case of Kelo v. City of New London, in which it ruled that the government may take private property from one person only to hand it over to another in the name of “economic development.”

As O’Connor Predicted: Rich & Connected Push Out Poor & Middle Class In her dissent, Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recognized the inevitable abuse that would follow. She wrote, “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” As Justice O’Connor predicted, eminent domain projects for private gain involving thousands of homes and small businesses of the poor and middle class continue to play out nationwide. Among them:·Senior citizens Carl and Joy Gamble from Norwood, Ohio, stand to lose their home of more than 35 years so developer Jeffrey Anderson can expand his $500,000,000 empire with a new mall.·More than 20 homeowners in Long Branch, N.J., many of whom have owned their oceanfront homes for generations, may be kicked off of their land for the construction of expensive condominiums.

·In Riviera Beach, Fla., a poor, predominantly black community (and one of the last affordable waterfront neighborhoods in Florida), is threatened by a massive redevelopment plan that may condemn up to 2,000 homes and businesses in favor of more expensive homes, upscale retail, and a yacht club, boat marina and other luxury amenities.

Even Justice Stevens Supports Legislative Limits On Eminent Domain Since Kelo, 43 state legislatures have passed or will soon consider eminent domain reform in their legislative sessions. Alabama and Texas both enacted laws aimed at preventing exactly what Kelo allowed. Ohio established a one-year eminent domain moratorium as it studies the issue. Michigan, whose own state Supreme Court rejected Kelo-style takings in 2004, referred a measure to its voters to codify the case law and require blight removal projects to proceed by parcel, which will prevent nice homes from being acquired with the bad ones. And the U.S. Congress is poised to restrict federal economic funds from being used by eminent domain abusers.“What’s been passed so far are good first steps, but they are only first steps and much more needs to be done if small property owners are to be protected,” said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which defended the homes of New London, Conn., resident Susette Kelo and her neighbors. “Nearly every state needs not only to restrict the use of eminent domain for private commercial development, but also to reform their blight laws to stop bogus blight declarations. Unless both of those reforms are done, and done in the right way, this abuse will continue.”“The public should be warned that lobbyists from the National League of Cities, planning associations and developers are out in force and are working overtime to preserve their power,” said Scott Bullock, an IJ senior attorney. “They’ll stop at nothing to make sure even the most sensible reforms will fail.”

Even Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in Kelo, made clear that states were free to impose greater limits on condemnation. Justice Stevens said mere months after the decision that he believes eminent domain for economic development is bad policy and hopes that the country would find a political solution. He said, “I would have opposed it if I were a legislator . . . . My own view is that the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials.”

Historic Coalition Aligned Against Abuse An historic coalition that cuts across the philosophical spectrum has united in calling to reform the nation’s eminent domain laws. Along with the Institute for Justice, the NAACP, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Farm Bureau, National Federation of Independent Business, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of Churches as well as other non-traditionally aligned groups have joined in the legal and legislative fight against eminent domain abuse.“This unprecedented coalition makes it clear that, when it comes to eminent domain abuse, it is the people versus the profiteers,” said Chip Mellor, IJ’s president and general counsel.In addition, the Castle Coalition (a nationwide grassroots network of citizens determined to stop the abuse of eminent domain in their communities) launched the most comprehensive website on the issue. CastleCoalition.org provides information and assistance to journalists, legislators, homeowners, students and scholars. CastleCoalition.org features an interactive map (powered by Google Maps) tracking condemnations for private development nationwide, an up-to-date catalog of eminent domain reform legislation at all levels of government, as well as an “Eminent Domain Survival Guide” to help homeowners successfully fight illegitimate land-grabs.

“The CastleCoalition.org website is ‘information central’ on the issue of eminent domain abuse and reform,” said Steven Anderson, Castle Coalition coordinator. “Homeowners need as much information and guidance as possible if they are going to win these very difficult fights. CastleCoalition.org gets them the information they need.”

Pink House Still Stands One year after the Kelo argument, Susette Kelo and her neighbors remain in their homes. Shortly after the Kelo decision was handed down, the legislature and Conn. Governor M. Jodi Rell asked for a moratorium on all takings for economic development, including those in New London, while the legislature looked at changing the law. At first, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), the private body granted eminent domain authority by the City, agreed to abide by this, and then changed its mind and started sending out eviction notices to some of the owners. This caused a firestorm of controversy in New London and throughout the state. Governor Rell ordered the NLDC to rescind the notices, which it reluctantly agreed to do. Shortly thereafter, the long-time head of the NLDC and antagonist of the property owners, David Goebel, resigned. The governor has said she supports keeping the homes in Fort Trumbull if possible and has appointed a mediator (independent of the NLDC) to look at all of the options. This month, the City Council unanimously voted to find a way to save many of the homes in Fort Trumbull.“I do not plan on moving out of my house,” said Kelo. “It is my dream home, and I will do everything in my power to make sure it stays where it is.”

# # # ##################################################################################

How about a little good news?

Friends:

Today, BB&T - the nation's ninth largest financial holdings company - announced that it “will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.” Please take a moment to read about BB&T's courageous stand against eminent domain abuse.

Best,

Christina Walsh
Assistant Castle Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice

Institute for Justice

901 N. Glebe Road Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203

Home Page: WWW.IJ.org

BB&T Respects Property Rights,

Won’t Fund Eminent Domain Abuse

Arlington, Va.-BB&T, the nation’s ninth largest financial holdings company with $109.2 billion in assets, announced today that it “will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.”

In a press release issued today by the bank, BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison, said, “The idea that a citizen’s property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it’s just plain wrong. One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won’t help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership.”

“BB&T’s principled stand sets an example that should inspire other lenders and should become the new industry standard,” said Institute for Justice President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. The Institute for Justice litigated the Kelo case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the taking of private property for someone else’s private use in the guise of “economic development.” Mellor said, “You can and should accomplish economic development through private negotiation, not the use of government force through eminent domain. As far as we’re concerned, BB&T now stands for Best Bank in Town.”

The U.S. Congress is now considering bipartisan legislation that would federally de-fund eminent domain for private use. Although the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation that would block any federal funds going to private development projects on land taken through eminent domain, the Senate has yet to vote on companion legislation. Last week, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), however, commented on an eminent domain case that was argued before the Ohio Supreme Court. The case involves Carl and Joy Gamble, homeowners from Norwood, Ohio, who could lose their home through eminent domain for a privately owned mall and high-end apartments. Frist wrote in an op-ed published by the Cincinnati Enquirer, “I have some pretty clear thoughts about the [Norwood] case: The Gambles should keep their home and the developer should either build around it or cancel the development plans altogether. . . . Quite simply, no family should ever risk losing its home because a government wants to help a private developer.”

Scott Bullock, an IJ senior attorney who argued the Kelo case, said, “Eminent domain abuse is wrong and unconstitutional. BB&T has stepped up and recognized its corporate responsibility to not be a part of this shameful abuse of individual rights.”

Dana Berliner, an IJ senior attorney who argued the Gambles’ case before the Ohio Supreme Court, said, “Throughout the country, banks have been silent partners in the unholy alliance between local governments and private developers. Banks finance developers and cities that use eminent domain to take someone’s home or business and turn the land into new stores, condos, and office space. Others will hopefully follow BB&T’s courageous example.”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

**************************************************************************

VOLUSIA COUNTY

Like Seminole, Volusia also is looking to hire a strong county manager in 2006.

"Our No.1 goal is to manage our growth here in Volusia County," Chairman Frank Bruno said.

Sherri M. Owens can be reached at 352-742-5922 or sowens@orlandosentinel.com.

****************************************************************

Question: Since a developer would not offer half a billion dollars without the good chance of still making a profit in the future, why are local governments so eager to try and get land for free with eminent domain/blight and slum?

Tiny Briny Breezes draws brawny $500 million offer

Peter Whoriskey
the Washington Post

December 28, 2005

BRINY BREEZES -- The news traveled fast, as it usually does in this tiny trailer-park town.

A secret suitor was offering to buy the entire municipality for $500 million -- more than $1 million per mobile home. Over shuffleboard courts, pinochle tables and whittling benches, word of the fabulous price soon spread.

" 'A million is a million' and 'Wow, a million dollars!' " said Bob Kraft, 78, a retired high-school English teacher from Detroit, recalling initial reactions to the proposal. "That looks good to a lot of people."

If the gargantuan sale goes through, the buyer is expected to wipe this unpretentious beach enclave off the map, obliterating one of the most conspicuous vestiges of the long-ago era when a Florida seaside paradise could be had cheaply.

Hundreds or thousands of luxury condos would probably rise in its place, a prospect that has evoked an unexpected surge of nostalgia for this cluster of boxy aluminum homes that are just somewhat wider than rail cars. They sit just feet from one another.

"We used to be an embarrassment," said Tom Byrne, 67, a retired insurance-sales manager from Long Island, N.Y., who had just been boasting to neighbors of reeling in a bluefish. "Now it turns out we're quaint."

Trailers of one kind or another have been on the property since the 1930s, when a farmer allowed passing "tin-can tourists" to park on his beachfront acreage.

But in recent decades, many Florida beaches have proved far too pricey for trailer parks, and some communities have forbidden them in fits of snob zoning.

"Briny," as it is known locally, was becoming increasingly noticeable as a throwback, particularly as the coast has become lined with ostentatious mansions and million-dollar condos.

But with the specter of so much more development in this area north of Boca Raton -- even though it would be far more grandiose than a trailer park -- has come a sense that a way of Florida life is disappearing.

"It'd be like selling my hometown," said Mayor Jack Lee, 56, who grew up there. He opposes the sale. "We're already living a millionaire's lifestyle -- even without the millions."

"I don't want to live in a condo," said Polly Brady, a retired teacher from Massachusetts.

She and her husband, Tim, a retired vice principal, bought one of the most valuable trailers in town -- on a lot overlooking the beach -- for $150,000 three years ago, they said.

"My kids thought I was crazy," Tim Brady said. "People have preconceptions about trailer parks. But we love it."

The identity of the bidder has not been disclosed by the residents who serve on the park's board. Ken Doyle, president of the corporation that owns the town's 43 acres, would say only that "we're quite sure it's a solid offer."

The owners of the mobile homes all are shareholders in the corporation.

In early December, it was announced that nearly three-quarters of the residents in this town of 488 homes had voted to appropriate $30,000 to pay lawyers to pursue the offer.

Earlier this year, 13 homes were for sale in Briny Breezes; since news of the proposal in October, there are none, Brady said.

The founders of the trailer park -- residents themselves who formed the corporation and purchased the land from the farmer decades ago -- set up rules intended to block a developer's buyout, preventing any one person from buying up too many lots, residents said.

The buyout proposal avoids those limits by buying the whole corporation of which residents own shares.

The town has 1,100 feet of frontage on the Intracoastal Waterway and about 600 feet on the Atlantic Ocean, and it has long been attractive to developers.

The bid is more than 10 times what Briny Breezes is assessed for by Palm Beach County.

Residents noted that it may be worth it because by purchasing the entire town, the potential buyer may be purchasing flexibility in what might be built there.

Many are loath to come out and say they want to sell.

"This is a wonderful place," said Bill Tolford, 81, a retired optometrist from Maine, over a Manhattan outside his beachfront home recently.

He has been traveling to Briny since the mid-'50s, when his parents had a place. He calculates his home would fetch $1.46 million in the deal.

"It's an overly fair price. I know how hard it is to accumulate a million dollars. When you can get it, take it."

*************************************************************************

This story could almost be about what is happening in Meadowlea. While it is outside the DeBary community, we will be bringing news articles like these to your attention to show how development and eminent domain issues are still of paramount interest to citizens everywhere.

It's builders vs. birds

Development may imperil breeding grounds

Robert Sargent
Sentinel Staff Writer

December 10, 2005

LEESBURG -- Massive development planned for a vast stretch of wetlands and pasture on the Lake-Sumter county line could threaten a prime breeding ground for whooping cranes -- one of the world's most endangered birds.

Builders want to convert 6,000 acres near a new interchange on Florida's Turnpike into two sprawling residential communities with nearly 14,000 homes, offices, parks, industrial buildings and shopping centers. Local planners and government officials met Friday to discuss the largest of the proposed projects.

"It's kind of heartbreaking," said Steve Nesbitt, a crane expert with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, who said people may assume the cranes will go somewhere else when development encroaches on them. "Sooner or later there is nowhere else, and we're almost at that point."

Since 1993, state and federal officials have relocated nearly 300 whooping cranes to secluded spots in Lake, Osceola and Polk counties. More than half of those sites have been sold, and many other rural areas also are being gobbled up, Nesbitt said.

That further whittles the odds for birds with already limited chances of survival.

The cranes in Florida were captive-bred at facilities in Maryland, Wisconsin, Texas and Canada. About 70, which were released in Florida and not trained to migrate, exist today. The rest have died.

In addition, 41 cranes fly here from Wisconsin and other Northern states in the winter -- trained to migrate with help from pilots flying ultralight aircraft and wearing crane-like costumes to minimize the birds' familiarity with humans. An additional 19 young cranes are making the trip behind an ultralight and are expected to arrive at the Dunnellon/Marion County Airport early next week.

Combined with a wild population of whooping cranes that migrates between Texas and Canada, fewer than 500 of the endangered birds are left in the world. Experts are watching closely as prime habitat erodes from the map.

"It is definitely something we are concerned about," said Joan Garland, spokeswoman for the International Crane Foundation.

She said many of the migratory cranes are attracted to the same wetlands that have year-round flocks, such as the rural region between Lake and Sumter counties targeted for development.

The environmentally sensitive land is shared by other protected species such as osprey, bald eagles and sandhill cranes. Nesbitt said that up to 20 whooping cranes live in the area all year.

He said the state brought the cranes there several years ago, cutting a deal with then property owner Crayton Pruitt to release captive-bred cranes onto hundreds of acres of wide-open pasture, lakes and wetlands.

The arrangement does not restrict how the property is used even though the cranes are protected from harm under federal migratory-bird laws. The Florida birds also are considered an experimental species, so they do not get the same protection as officially listed endangered animals.

Officials say the cranes probably are spread across several properties in south Leesburg and Sumter counties.

The Pruitt site now belongs to Benderson Development Co. of Sarasota, which is proposing Secret Promise, a project with more than 9,200 new homes and commercial, industrial and office buildings on 3,700 acres near the turnpike. If approved, the community could more than double Leesburg's population of 17,000.

Land-development attorney Bruce Duncan said Secret Promise will include 800 acres for wildlife and environmental conservation. The development also may allow upland areas for the birds to forage and special buffers around wetlands, according to environmental experts working with Benderson.

Next to that site, Pringle Development of Leesburg aims to build Renaissance Trails, a 4,500-home retirement community with shopping centers and an equestrian facility on 2,300 acres spread across Lake and Sumter counties. The Lake portion of the site is proposed for annexation into Leesburg, said Laura McElhanon, the city's director of community development.

Both large projects will undergo strict review from state and local planners and wildlife officials to help set up restrictions for building around sensitive wetland areas.

"You can have development there and protect the environment," McElhanon said.

The area around the turnpike was expected to explode with new construction after an $18 million interchange opened in January at County Road 470. Leesburg officials say development proposals are rolling in, and they estimate that 24,000 homes could be built during the next decade or so.

The immense development has raised serious questions about protecting wildlife -- especially birds as rare as the whooping crane.

Adult cranes are the tallest bird in North America -- the only place they exist. They reach almost 5 feet tall, which is larger than their more common cousins, the sandhill cranes. The birds can live up to 25 years in the wild.

They have long been considered one of the most threatened species in the world. In the late 19th century, the number of cranes was estimated at 1,400. Hunting and habitat losses dwindled their numbers to only about 15 by 1941, according to experts.

Scientists started releasing experimental flocks of cranes in Central Florida in 1993 to help encourage the birds to breed and to help build diverse populations. Experts say crane programs probably will have to continue for many more years before the species is no longer threatened for survival.

"I don't think people really grasp the efforts that are being made and the potential for failure that exists," Nesbitt said.

Robert Sargent can be reached at rsargent@orlandosentinel.com or 352-742-5909.

****************************************************************************

Standing in Riverwalk's way

Some Port Orange residents won't sell to make room for scores of stores, restaurants and condominium towers.

Terry O. Roen
Sentinel Staff Writer

January 5, 2006

PORT ORANGE -- A few clapboard houses, aging mobile homes and their stalwart owners lie in the path of one of Central Florida's most ambitious waterfront developments.

This sleepy city of 51,000 residents has been known more as a geriatric paradise but now is poised to cash in on a real-estate market gobbling up riverfront property at prices once reserved for oceanfront homes.

The city and a developer have purchased 65 percent of the land needed to build the Port Orange Riverwalk, a $380 million mecca of stores, restaurants and condo towers on the mainland side of the Halifax River. Yet there are about a dozen holdouts who are clinging to their riverfront lifestyles.

Mayor Allen Green said he is hoping the city will not have to force off property owners by using the city's power of eminent domain. But an Orlando law firm that specializes in taking property for public use has been hired in preparation for land squabbles.

City planners compare the Riverwalk to similar waterfront developments such as Jacksonville Landing and Faneuil Hall Marketplace in Boston. It will be twice the size of the planned redevelopment of Daytona Beach's Boardwalk and has a price tag that is more than triple.

A recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain paved the way for Daytona Beach to force out three businesses in the historic beachside neighborhood to rebuild the famed Boardwalk.

In Port Orange, plans for the Old Florida-style Riverwalk include 600 condominiums and a 200- to 300-slip marina. Construction is expected to begin by June on the first residential phase followed by boardwalk businesses in the fall.

"Every city along the Intracoastal Waterway is feeling the impact of escalating riverfront prices," said Donna Steinebach, assistant to the city manager and former director of community development. "The condos will sell for $300,000 to half a million each -- prices the city saw five years ago for oceanfront condos."

The five-phase project that the city approved in December is awaiting approval from the state and Volusia County. It covers 35 acres of prime riverfront land. Twelve acres -- including six fronting the Halifax River with a nearly mile-long boardwalk -- will be preserved for city parkland, a plaza for public events and community meeting space.

Residents will benefit because "the city ends up owning the entire riverfront in perpetuity," said Frank Ditmyer, chief financial officer and project coordinator for Port Orange River Walk LLP, a partnership between LaCour & Company of Port Orange and McGurn Investment Co. of Gainesville. "This will give residents a place to live, work, walk and Rollerblade."

Some nearby business owners also are looking forward to increased property values.

Riverwalk is part of 221 acres that was declared blighted by the Community Redevelopment District in 1998 to provide funds to build a new downtown. Two mobile-home communities have been uprooted and several riverfront homes bought out to make way for the development.

The Halifax Mobile Home Park, which the city purchased in 1998 for $1.1 million, looks like a ghost town because many of the trailers have been evacuated or only the foundations are left.

"We're not trailer trash," said Ava Cassista, one of the remaining park residents. "They want high-income snowbirds and are chasing people like us off."

Cassista said she and her husband cannot find a place for the $300 a month they pay in rent. She vowed not to leave until the city kicks them out.

Of the original 74 units, only 10 remain that belong to the mobile-home owners, said Kenneth Parker, city manager. The owners entered an agreement with the city that they can stay until May 2010 while other phases of the project are built.

The City Council voted Dec. 6 to pay $200 an hour to Jay Small of Wilson, Garber and Small in Orlando to handle any future acquisition problems.

Barbara Hughes, 88, remembers not having the 10 cents to cross the wooden bridge to the ocean from the three-story riverfront home her father built in 1925. The tidy clapboard home on nearly an acre her grandfather purchased sits on the south end of the Riverwalk development.

"Port Orange was just a corny little crossroads," said Hughes, who has refused numerous offers to sell her riverfront home that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. "This was a vacant lot filled with scrub, sand spurs and stick-tights that my father said he would never sell unless he built a house on it."

Green, the mayor, said Hughes can stay on the property "as long as she lives and we can build around her."

Hughes compared herself to a woman who held out against Donald Trump's casino plans in Atlantic City and the development was built around her home.

"It just makes me sick to think about Riverwalk," Hughes said. "This has always been the prettiest spot in town and it will soon become a concrete canyon."

Terry Roen can be reached at troen@orlandosentinel.comor 386-851-7911.

*****************************************************************************