Questionnaire Results

1000 Friends Of Florida Smart Growth Questionnaire Results

As the Legislature sets out to revise Florida's 1985 Growth Management Act, 1000 Friends asked Foresight readers to express their views on how growth management is working and what can be done to improve it. The responses and opinions will help 1000 Friends of Florida develop recommendations on promoting smarter growth in the state. 1000 Friends would like to thank everyone who completed a questionnaire. Thanks to your responses, we will be able to improve our understanding of growth issues in Florida and develop recommendations for smarter growth.

	Better	About the same	Worse	Unsure
1. Do you think the overall quality of life in your community is better, about the same, or worse that is would have been if there were no state-mandated comprehensive planning process in place for the last decade?	58.7%	17.4%	15.7%	6.6%

	Very Thoroughly	Just Adequately	Poorly	Very poorly	Unsure	Not Applicable
2. Do you think your city government enforces the provisions of your comprehensive plan very thoroughly, just adequately, poorly, or very poorly?	11.6%	28.1%	30.6%	10.7%	4.1%	11.6%
3. Do you think your county government enforces the provisions of you comprehensive plan very thoroughly, just adequately, poorly or very poorly?	10.7%	27.3%	29.8%	26.4%	3.3%	0.0%

	Too Extensive	About Right	Not Extensive Enough	Unsure	Not Applicable
4. Do you think the oversight by the DCA in the implementation of your cities comprehensive plan has been too extensive, about right, or not extensive enough?	3.3%	27.3%	40.5%	10.7%	12.4%
5. Do you think the oversight provided by the DCA in the implementation of your county's comprehensive plan has been too extensive, about right, or not extensive enough?	4.1%	29.8%	53.7%	8.3%	0.8%

	Yes, Extensively	Yes, A Little	No	Unsure
6. Did you participate in the development of your community's comprehensive plan in the late 1980's to early 1990's?	28.9%	18.2%	51.2%	N/A
7. Did you participate in the updating of your comprehensive plan through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process?	26.4%	23.1%	47.1%	N/A
8. Within the last three years, have you appeared before your local elected officials regarding a planning or zoning issue?	33.9%	33.9%	28.9%	N/A

9. Do you believe the following are very important, somewhat important, or not important?	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important
Citizen Participation in your community's comprehensive plan in the late 1980's to early 1990's	85.1%	14.9%	0.0%
Communities where you could walk, bike, or easily take public transit to schools, shops, and parks	81.0%	14.0%	3.3%
Agreement on how a community will pay for schools, roads and other public services needed to service new development prior to approval of that development	94.2%	4.1%	1.7%

10. Do you think your local comprehensive plan has been effective, somewhat effective, ineffective, or are you unsure, in the following areas?	Very Effective	Somewhat Effective	Ineffective	Unsure
Protecting your general quality of life	13.2%	52.1%	30.6%	1.7%
Encouraging downtown revitalization	15.7%	38.8%	33.9%	9.1%
Protecting the character of established neighborhoods	12.4%	47.9%	33.9%	4.1%
Promoting affordable housing	9.9%	38.0%	45.5%	5.0%
Protecting important environmentally sensitive lands	17.4%	38.8%	39.7%	2.5%
Protecting significant historical resources	12.4%	48.8%	23.1%	14.0%
Protecting agricultural lands from urbanization	7.4%	12.4%	60.3%	11.6%
Protecting the character of rural communities	4.1%	21.5%	54.5%	13.2%
Protecting air and water quality	5.0%	45.5%	43.0%	4.1%
Curbing urban sprawl	5.8%	19.8%	66.1%	5.0%
Lessening traffic congestion	3.3%	20.7%	70.2%	1.7%

11. Do you strongly agree, agree, are neutral, or strongly disagree that the following are important to make your local comprehensive plan more effective?	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Strengthen state oversight of the comprehensive planning process	59.5%	19.0%	10.7%	8.3%	0.8%
strengthen regional planning and coordination	65.3%	20.7%	8.3%	5.0%	0.8%
Allow for greater citizen participation in the planning process	57.0%	24.8%	12.4%	3.3%	0.0%
Develop tighter urban service area boundaries	66.9%	22.3%	6.6%	1.7%	0.8%
Include provisions for downtown revitalization	55.4%	32.2%	9.9%	0.8%	0.8%
Include provisions to keep land in agriculture	62.0%	24.0%	9.1%	2.5%	0.0%
Include provisions to protect environmentally sensitive lands	43.0%	35.5%	18.2%	2.5%	0.0%
Include provisions to ensure affordable housing	82.6%	15.7%	1.7%	0.0%	0.0%
Acquire land to protect areas and provide for greenways and parks	82.6%	14.9%	1.7%	0.0%	0.0%
Include provisions to protect significant historical resources	62.0%	30.6%	5.0%	1.7%	0.0%
End developer subsidies that promote urban sprawl	90.1%	4.1%	4.1%	1.7%	0.0%
Streamline the permitting process	22.3%	34.7%	15.7%	18.2%	5.0%
Improve coordination between transportation, land use and water planning	79.3%	15.7%	3.3%	1.7%	0.0%
Promote alternative forms or transportation (i.e., transit, bike paths, etc.)	66.9%	24.8%	6.6%	0.8%	0.0%
Include provisions that allow communities to be designed so residents can walk, bike, or easily take public transit to shops, schools, and parks	63.6%	26.4%	8.3%	0.0%	0.0%
Require annexations to be consistent with both city and county plans	62.8%	24.0%	5.0%	5.0%	0.8%

12. Do you think your local planning process would be better if the state provided more, the same, less, or are unsure, of the following?	More	Same	Less	Unsure
State review of local comprehensive plan amendments	60.3%	25.6%	5.8%	5.8%
Technical assistance to local governments	72.7%	19.8%	5.0%	0.0%
Technical assistance to private citizens	64.5%	16.5%	1.7%	12.4%
Technical assistance to developers	43.8%	21.5%	14.9%	15.7%
State funding and incentives for better planning	91.7%	5.0%	0.8%	0.8%
State requirements for better regional planning (i.e. better coordination between county governments and between cities and counties.	86.8%	7.4%	1.7%	2.5%
State allocation of funding for transportation, water and sewer improvements, education and other public purposes to areas targeted for growth	60.3%	18.2%	2.5%	11.6%

13. Would you generally favor %strengthening, leaving as they are, relaxing, or eliminating the following aspects of Florida's growth management system?	Strengthening	Leaving As They Are	Relaxing	Eliminating
Concurrency requirements	57.0%	14.9%	5.0%	0.0%
Urban Service Areas	63.6%	12.4%	0.8%	0.8%
Prohibitions on urban sprawl	77.7%	8.3%	0.8%	0.0%
Intergovernmental Coordination Element	65.3%	11.6%	3.3%	0.0%
Development of Regional Impacts (DRI) Program	51.2%	14.9%	5.8%	2.5%
The Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Process	38.8%	23.1%	5.0%	2.5%
The State Comprehensive Plan	65.3%	11.6%	0.8%	0.8%
Area of Critical State Concern Program	55.4%	16.5%	0.8%	0.0%
Requirements for Disaster Preparedness	43.0%	30.6%	3.3%	0.0%
Citizen standing and enforcement of local plans	58.7%	23.1%	1.7%	0.8%
Appeals process for plan amendments	34.7%	33.1%	4.1%	1.7%
Appeals process for development orders	33.1%	34.7%	1.7%	3.3%
Appeals process to land development regulations	28.9%	34.7%	1.7%	4.1%
Local Planning Agencies	38.0%	31.4%	3.3%	3.3%
Regional Planning Councils	57.0%	16.5%	3.3%	5.0%
Local comprehensive plan amendment process	39.7%	25.6%	8.3%	2.5%

The 1000 Friends of Florida Smart Growth Questionnaire also included three free response questions. You can take a look at the responses by clicking on the links below.

1. What are the biggest successes of Florida's existing growth management system?

2. What are the biggest failures of Florida's existing growth management system?

3. If you could improve something in the current growth management system, what would it be?