|
1000
Friends of Florida Member Questionnaire Click
here for complete questionnaire results
1000 Friends'
Smart Growth Questionnaire Results Are In
(Foresight, Spring 2000)
by Anthony LaColla, Planning Intern
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. The following is a brief synopsis of the questionnaire results.
Although some survey
participants feel the quality of life in their communities is about the same
(17 percent) or worse (16 percent), the majority (59 percent) feel their quality
of life is better than if there were no state-mandated comprehensive planning
for the last decade. Most indicate that local comprehensive plans have been
effective in protecting the general quality of life (79 percent), the environment
(56 percent), the character of established neighborhoods (60 percent), and significant
historical resources (61 percent), as well as encouraging downtown revitalization
(55 percent).
Further results, however, show that respondents generally feel city and county
governments enforce the provisions of their comprehensive plans poorly (41 percent
for city and 56 percent for county) or just adequately (28 percent for city
and 27 percent for county). The overall belief is that local comprehensive plans
have been ineffective in dealing with sprawl issues (66 percent), traffic congestion
(70 percent), affordable housing (45 percent), protecting agricultural lands
(60 percent), and protecting the rural character of communities (54 percent).
Very few respondents feel the city (12 percent) or county (11 percent) governments
thoroughly enforce their comprehensive plans.
Asked to comment
on the oversight provided by the DCA in the implementation of city and county
comprehensive plans, respondents generally agreed that oversight has not been
extensive enough (49 percent for city and 65 percent for county). The majority
of respondents favor strengthening state oversight of local comprehensive planning
(60 percent) and increasing technical assistance (73 percent). A vast majority
express the need for increased state funding and incentives (92 percent) to
encourage better planning and make local comprehensive plans more effective.
Most respondents
also agree that local comprehensive plans would be made more effective by strengthening
regional planning and coordination (86 percent), allowing for greater citizen
participation (82 percent), and including provisions for natural preservation
(79 percent), historic preservation (93 percent), affordable housing (98 percent)
and improved/multimodal transportation planning (90 percent). In addition, an
overwhelming majority (98 percent) are convinced that there should be an agreement
on how a community will pay for schools, roads, and other public services prior
to approval of new development.
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.
1000 Friends
of Florida gratefully acknowledges the assistance of DeHaven-Smith and Associates
in the development and tabulation of this survey.
Complete
Survey Results
As
the 2000 Legislature set 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. A questionnaire was included
in the Winter 1999 issue of 1000 Friends' newsletter, Foresight. Here are the
results.
|
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 open ended 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?
|
|
