|
|
|
||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
DCA Secretaries Share Their Views Growth Management in Florida: My Perspective on What Has and Hasn't Worked and Why By Dr. John M. DeGrove, Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1983-1985 Florida's effort to manage growth and change in an environment marked by explosive growth since the end of WWII can be summed up as a lot of positive accomplishments, a lot of negative disappointments and a demanding unfinished agenda as we move into the first decade of the new century. I will summarize my view of what has and hasn't worked and what will be required to correct the weaknesses in the system. First, as the negative impacts of unmanaged growth became impossible to ignore in the 1950's and 1960's, we enacted our first try at managing the massive growth pressures that followed WWII. With strong leadership from Governor Reubin O'D. Askew and key leaders in the legislature, a series of laws were passed in 1972 and 1975 that were landmarks for their time. They called for a state comprehensive plan, regional plans, and a requirement that all local governments prepare a comprehensive plan. While much that was positive came from this first try, it fell short of its potential for a number of reasons, including the failure of the state to provide funding for either local governments or regional agencies, weak state and regional review of local plans, and failure to adopt the state comprehensive plan until the end of the decade, and then only as an advisory document. Florida's second try at adopting a comprehensive system for managing its growth came in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Again, strong leadership by Governor Bob Graham and legislative leaders led to the adoption of almost all ELMS II's recommendations except one: "If you aren't willing to fund it, don't adopt it." The legislation adopted over the 1984-86 period did result in a system with the right components, assuming their full implementation. But the key components consistency and concurrency have been very hard to implement fully, and that has resulted in the widespread failure to contain sprawl and sustain and revitalize existing urban communities. Chief among the reasons for this failure is that the state has not provided its share of the cost of implementing the system, especially the concurrency requirement. Unlike in the 1970s, the funds for local government plans and lands development regulations were provided by the state. But funding needed to meet the state's share of the concurrency requirement was a multi-billion dollar challenge, which has not been met. As mandated by the State Plan, the Comprehensive Plan Committee assessed the cost of implementing the state plan and recommended ways to meet those costs. For a brief period of six months its recommendation for extending the sales tax to services was adopted, then repealed when Governor Martinez reversed his support for the tax. Recent estimates have it that by now more than $25 billion would have been passed through to local governments as the state's share of meeting the concurrency requirement. Many feel as I do that such a sum would have given the state the credibility and the incentives to persuade local governments to go beyond the minimum in preparing and implementing their plans and land development regulations plans that contained sprawl, limited densities in rural areas, and focused on concentrating growth in existing and new planned urban areas. The work of the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida and the effort to restore and sustain the greater Everglades ecosystem has provided us with important directions in moving toward a sustainable natural and urban systems approach with the focus on incentives and disincentives rather than any increase in mandates from the state/regional levels. DCA has moved aggressively in the past few years to support a sustainable communities approach which shows great promise in strengthening efforts to contain sprawl and revitalize existing urban areas, in the process protecting natural systems that continue to be consumed by sprawling development patterns. These efforts are very unlikely to be successful without more dollars to drive the system. What, then, can we do to make Florida's growth management system work better? Florida needs to maintain the state/regional/local land use and growth management partnership with some implementation muscle, and should provide adequate and consistent funding to combat sprawl. The state needs to search creatively for stronger incentives to bring local governments, developers, and others into a smart growth framework that will provide sustainable and livable communities. Florida also needs to recognize and implement a regional approach to dealing with regional issues. The cold, hard reality is that Florida is a low tax effort state in a high-tech world. The Zwick Committee Report, in 1987, laid out what we would need to do to succeed. Much will depend on the Governor. His key appointments to date that bear directly on growth management have been excellent. There is clearly an unfinished agenda, not the least of which is finding new revenues to support the implementation effort. Only strong leadership from the Governor can overcome certain opposition by some legislative leaders. For that to happen, citizens of the state will need to make their voices heard at every level, especially through smart growth advocacy groups like 1000 Friends of Florida. DeGrove served as Secretary of DCA under Governor Bob Graham, and then returned to his position as Director of the FAU/FIU Joint Center for Urban and Environmental Problems. In January 1999 he left the Joint Center to fill an eminent scholar chair named in his honor at Florida Atlantic University. A founder of 1000 Friends of Florida, DeGrove serves as the organization's president. Florida's Growth Management Process: Success or Failure? By Tom Lewis, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1985-1987 I was honored to have been a part of passing and implementing the landmark 1985-86 growth management legislation. I also had the, should I say "fortune" (?), to follow my public service as a private real estate developer, subject to the very laws and rules I had helped pass and promulgate. Therefore, my perspective comes from both my public and private experiences. I believe Florida's growth management process has worked well, but there is still work to be done. There have been two particularly positive results that I am pleased have occurred:
Interagency Cooperation I arrived at DCA after almost four years as Assistant Secretary of Transportation, where my main job was the day to day management of FDOT. I immediately became aware of the lack of communication between DCA and FDOT. DCA was taking positions on major transportation policy (particularly as related to the DRI Program) with no input from FDOT. I don't put all the onus on DCA, however, because FDOT wasn't prepared to commit the resources to really get involved. Then-FDOT Secretary Drawdy and I initiated the beginning of what has become a strong cooperative partnership between these two key agencies with growth management responsibilities. I do believe the great strides of these two agencies working together has been one of the positive results of the 1985-86 legislation. Current FDOT Secretary Barry has initiated an evaluation to determine whether FDOT should remain involved in the DRI Process. While there is possibly some merit to this change, I still believe FDOT plays a very important role in the local government comprehensive planning process. As recent examples of cooperation, the two agencies co-chaired the Transportation and Land Use Study Committee. A number of meaningful recommendations are now being implemented. Additionally, the updating of FDOT's "state agency plan," Florida 2020, is being done with the oversight of a Steering Committee which includes local government officials and the Secretaries of FDOT, DCA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. I don't believe FDOT would have ever stood for much less welcomed this type of cooperative effort prior to the mid-1980s. And there have been a significant number of "win-win" conflict resolution successes. As an example, DCA played a significant facilitator role in St. Johns County where Level of Service requirements on the Interstate competed with local government goals for economic development. Ultimately, the rural level of service was adjusted upon accomplishing a sector plan. Rule 9J-5--As I think back, the promulgation of DCA Rule 9J-5 was not a fun time! Many referred to the day we filed the new Rule as the "real Valentine's Day Massacre." What many don't know is that I had rejected several previous versions of the Rule. What hit the state on February 14, 1986 was much less intrusive on local government than it might have been! Over the years since then, the guiding rules for developing local comprehensive plans have remained pretty intact . . . a credit to the local governments, private sector and special interest stakeholders and DCA staff involved in its development. It should never be the role of DCA to dictate to local government. Rather, DCA is local government's advocate for growth management, housing, community development and emergency management at the state level. As such, it should be a partnership with the greater emphasis on the role of local government. I believe over the past ten years DCA has been headed in that direction, and will continue to follow that path. So where have we fallen short? What should we focus on now? I would suggest two areas:
Concurrency I think Concurrency is an area where some focused attention is needed. How has it worked? How should it really work? How flexible can it be and still play a meaningful role in managing growth? How are the impacts to state transportation facilities being addressed? How should the levying and application of Impact Fees be handled as a meaningful part of Concurrency? Also, as part of this evaluation, we should address the linkage (or lack of linkage) between local government comprehensive plans (which typically have a very aggressive perspective toward future growth) and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations' (MPO) funding-constrained short- and long-term transportation plans. Do the cumulative growth projections of various local comprehensive plans represent "the Florida we want?" How is this land use being translated at the regional level in the MPO planning process? Intergovernmental Coordination In my opinion, the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, or "ICE," is where we have made the least progress. I am a very strong believer in local government. Except for issues that are clearly of "major statewide significance" (such as building codes), local governments should be in the driver's seat. My hope was that by now the DRI Program would have been abolished, since we would have had in place a strong program of intergovernmental coordination elements. I still hope that will happen. Maybe we need some kind of "funding incentive" to facilitate strong inter-jurisdiction coordination? *** We should continue refining and improving our growth management process. We can't afford to have an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. The menu of stakeholders both public and private should be proud of their mid-1980's initiative, and remain committed to continuing to demand a strong but fair state-guided, locally directed and managed, smart growth program. I believe we still have the strongest and best growth management process in the country. Other states are still learning from us. Let's keep it that way! Lewis served as the Secretary of DCA under Governor Bob Graham. From 1987-1999 he served as Vice President of Disney Development Company and Walt Disney Imagineering where he was the lead executive for the development of Disney's Town of Celebration project. Currently, he is Vice President of the Walt Disney World Company. Perspectives on Growth Management By Tom Pelham, Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1987-1991 Florida's growth management program involves both process and policy. In terms of process, the program has worked well in some respects and not so well in others. From the perspective of policy, the program started strongly, then sputtered, and is now floundering. Process Using building blocks put into place during the previous fifteen years, the 1985 growth management legislation created on paper a strong state, regional, and local planning process. Because of legislative changes or administrative emphasis or neglect, this process has not always worked as originally envisioned by its architects. Nevertheless, the basic process remains in place. This process continues to provide a valuable conceptual and administrative framework for addressing the complex problems presented by Florida's continuing growth. The soundness of the conceptual framework does not mean that it always works well in practice or that adjustments are not needed. The process for local adoption and state review and approval of the original comprehensive plans worked much better than many ever expected it would. Every local government in the state adopted and obtained state approval of comprehensive plans and then adopted implementing development regulations. The quality of adopted local plans and regulations and their enforcement varies greatly. Nevertheless, on paper, local governments are in a much better position to more effectively manage growth today than they were in 1985, although improper implementation and weak enforcement are continuing problems. Unfortunately, the plan amendment review process, designed to ensure that local governments continue to plan in accordance with minimum state criteria, is not working as well and needs improvement. Part of the problem is the sheer magnitude of the administrative task. In a state as large as Florida, it is unrealistic to have the Department of Community Affairs reviewing virtually every one of the thousands of plan amendments adopted by local governments each year. Another problem is the time consuming and sometimes duplicative nature of the plan amendment review process. Although checks and balances are vitally important, the current process is an unduly burdensome and bureaucratic exercise which prevents the Department of Community Affairs from devoting the necessary attention to issues of genuine state and regional importance. I hasten to add that a sufficient measure of state oversight is still needed to protect the important state and regional interest in sound planning. Our growth management legislation has improved local land use planning and decision making. By emphasizing the need to consider and address issues ranging from infrastructure and concurrency to development patterns and urban sprawl, growth management legislation has played an important educational role in improving local community planning. The legislation has provided local governments with new growth management tools and inspired them to develop other innovative local planning techniques. Concurrency has worked reasonably well. Although it has not prevented or even slowed development to the extent that some hoped for and others feared, concurrency has resulted in improved planning coordination of development and infrastructure and has made infrastructure funding a permanent part of our land use decision-making agenda. Our growth management system has been far less successful in improving intergovernmental coordination, creating an effective regional planning mechanism, and subjecting the state government to the process. Predictably, the weak intergovernmental coordination element has been largely ineffective. Consequently, our fragmented system of 476 local governments continues to be a formidable barrier to effective growth management. Although they perform many valuable functions, our regional planning agencies have not been given the legal authority or the political and financial support needed to fill the void in intergovernmental coordination. The biggest disappointment of all has been the failure of state government to commit itself to the process which it created. The State Comprehensive Plan has not been comprehensively updated since its enactment in 1985. For all practical purposes, the state agency functional plans, designed to link the activities of major state agencies to the goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan, never worked and have been abandoned. Neither the state legislative or executive branches have based their budgetary, taxing, or spending decisions on the planning policies set forth in our growth management laws. State government routinely ignores local comprehensive plans when it makes its capital improvement decisions. Regrettably, while preaching one set of rules to local government, state government has lived by another. Policy If the growth management process is to enhance the quality of development, it must be infused with and driven by established, clearly defined goals and realistic policies for achieving them. As the following examples illustrate, the development of growth policy has been largely neglected in favor of constant tinkering with the process. The State Comprehensive Plan, Florida's primary legislative growth policy statement, is flawed. Without diminishing the importance of its enactment, we should all recognize that on many issues it does not provide effective guidance for our growth management process. Nor, as noted above, has this document been comprehensively updated since its enactment. Our urban sprawl strategy has suffered from policy failure of another kind. A strong land use planning and regulatory policy discouraging urban sprawl can be gleaned from our growth management legislation. However, because the state has failed to support this policy by making corresponding changes in governmental fiscal policies and related programs which subsidize urban sprawl, our land use regulatory system runs counter to many other governmental programs and policies. Therefore, it should not be surprising that our growth management process has had only limited success in containing urban sprawl. Pelham served as DCA Secretary under Governor Bob Martinez. He then returned to private law practice in Tallahassee, Florida. "Back to the Future" By James F. Murley, Esq., Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1995-1999 Think back to 1984. Under the 1975 Comprehensive Planning Act, we had clear and convincing evidence that planning without a process for resolving intergovernmental problems would fail. Governments were suing each other, and citizens were contemplating a constitutional amendment to guarantee citizen standing. Recall the coastal erosion resulting from the big storms of that year. Entire buildings fell into the sea. That became the image of what unbridled growth--absent a process for ensuring that statewide issues and concerns were addressed at the local planning level--could result in. The 1985 Legislature responded by passing the Growth Management Act. All Florida cities and counties now have plans in compliance with state law. Is it enough to absorb another 6 million people by 2025? GROWTH MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES Because of our growth management process, the State of Florida is now first among all 50 states in this nation with regard to planning and implementing land acquisition, affordable housing, and hazard mitigation programs. Land Acquisition Preservation 2000 and its successor program, Florida Forever (1999 Legislative Session), place Florida as Number One in the United States in the commitment to acquiring and preserving environmentally sensitive lands for future generations. Starting in 2001, Florida Communities Trust will dedicate $70 million per year to help implement open space, recreation, and coastal management elements of local plans. Affordable Housing Another success is the 1992 passage of the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act. This legislation is named to honor the late Bill Sadowski, a former DCA Secretary. This landmark housing legislation established a dedicated revenue source of more than $160 million per year for the provision of housing to Florida's lower-income residents. These funds have become an important source of revenue for communities to implement the housing element of their local plans. Hazard Mitigation Florida is also a leader in hazard mitigation planning at the local level. In the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in August 1992--and later floods, tornadoes, and fires--billions of dollars have been spent trying to rebuild. Communities have received more than $20 million in federal and state funds to revisit their plans during the post-storm reconstruction process. Florida is Number One in these areas because of our planning. It helps bring all sectors--government and private--together in a consensus-building process that leads to real improvements in our quality of life. WHAT HASN'T WORKED There are a variety of decision-making bodies that affect policy and planning in our communities at the local level. They often act in isolation and their decisions may have negative impacts on neighboring communities and essential statewide interests. We are increasingly experiencing negative citizen reaction to schools, ports, mixed-use and affordable housing projects. More needs to be done to integrate these facilities into the comprehensive planning process. We need to tie state funding to local plans, rewrite the State Comprehensive Plan, streamline conflict resolution, and replace process with results. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Technology is a big issue that should not be overlooked. A huge amount of data is collected in support of our state, regional, and local plans. We have missed the opportunity of taking information from these plans and using it in constructive ways. With the Internet technology that exists today, this data can help us plan for the future. 2. The process for conflict resolution must be refined. The Florida Cabinet will be reduced to four members in 2002. We must undertake an analysis of the roles that the Administration Commission and the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission play in resolving land and water conflicts. It may be helpful to examine the processes used in the states of Oregon and Washington where special administrative law courts have been created to handle land use cases. 3. The Florida Constitution mandates the adoption of a state planning document; hence, we must undertake the process of revising the State Comprehensive Plan. This must be done given the current debate over the entire budget process in Florida. A state priority plan, tied to local plans, can be used to set priorities in the state budget process for funding transportation, schools, community facilities, and infrastructure. 4. Recent demonstration programs for Sustainable Communities and Sector Plans offer a new alternative for less process and more focus on collaborative planning with measurable results. 5. In conclusion and last but not least, there should be an ongoing, active role for "private attorneys general" in Florida. Charged with "keeping public officials honest," citizen enforcement must continue and indeed be strengthened. My Vision By Steve Seibert, Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1999- Let me share my own vision for the future of growth management in Florida. Current growth management statutes and rules are intended in part to achieve a number of goals including, for example, environmental protection, adequate transportation, affordable housing, urban revitalization, quality schools, parks and other green spaces, intergovernmental coordination and protection of agricultural and other working lands. Toward this end local governments are required to develop comprehensive plans through a process which ideally reflects the development of a community vision of future growth characterized by active citizen involvement and input. This planning process will naturally differ from local government to local government given the rich diversity which exists from region to region throughout the state. How Jacksonville or St. Petersburg or Sopchoppy deals with growth management issues may very well differ significantly. The growth management process should be elastic enough to accommodate these regional differences. A meaningful and effective local comprehensive planning process must provide guidance and direction to the elected local official. The plan needs to be both visionary and understandable, with sufficient detail to allow for a uniform and fair construction and application of its terms and conditions. Inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan should be readily discernible. The Department of Community Affairs' role in this process should be twofold:
Each plan--whether local or regional--should contain a process by which governments deal with one another in addressing and resolving conflicts arising out of decisions by one which impact the other. The State has a compelling interest in ensuring there is a workable intergovernmental coordination element in each comprehensive plan. Aside from matters of compelling state interest, in which case intervention by the Department of Community Affairs may be necessary and appropriate, the community is the appropriate guarantor of the local comprehensive plan's integrity. Citizens must be granted a remedy to challenge a government's decision they believe is inconsistent with the plan. Such remedy must not be so technically difficult or expensive as to render it meaningless. Neither should the remedy be misused as a mechanism for delay and harassment. This is my proposal in concept for improvement of the growth management process. The details are still to be determined. I am confident the result will be better planning and a better Florida. Seibert has served as Secretary of the Florida Department of Community Affairs under Governor Jeb Bush since early this year. A lawyer and mediator, Seibert also served as a Pinellas County Commissioner, a member of the local MPO, and chaired the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.
|