Our community is at a crossroads. The rapid growth that has transformed much of Florida is coming to Alachua County. All around us, natural areas and working family farms are steadily being consumed by sprawling cookie cutter subdivisions, strip malls, and parking lots. With it comes worsening traffic congestion, rising taxes, crowded schools, and deteriorating water and air quality.

I believe these problems don't have to be the inevitable consequences of growth, and that it's possible for our community to prosper economically without sacrificing the unique character and high quality of life that we now enjoy. However, this requires foresight and careful planning.

The Comprehensive Plan approved last year by the Alachua County Commission adopted a few basic planning concepts that other larger, faster growing communities have used successfully to address the negative consequences of growth. That Plan benefited from an understanding of the mistakes made by other fast-growing communities that have gone before us, and sought a better path. State planning officials and the Department of Agriculture praised that Plan as visionary and effective.

What has been proposed tonight is that we remove the very elements that make this Comprehensive Plan work, and return to the status quo. This has been described as "tweaking," and "leaving most of the Plan intact," but anyone familiar with the Plan knows otherwise.

The purpose of the proposed Urban Services Line is to efficiently direct new subdivisions and commercial centers into suitable areas at the growing "edge" of the community. Growth that "sprawls" or leapfrogs out into the countryside degrades the environment, generates excessive traffic, and disrupts traditional agricultural operations. It inflates taxes, since the expense of basic government utilities and services, like roads, water and sewer lines, fire and police protection, and garbage pickup, is much greater for subdivisions isolated far out in the countryside. This added expense is passed along to all taxpayers. The proposal before us is to place so much land within the Urban Services Line as to make it irrelevant, and insure that none of the potential benefits are realized.

Locating new subdivisions far out in the middle of rural areas is foremost among the problems that drive down quality of life in any community, for all the reasons just cited. Still, the a compromise was reached in the adopted Plan that would allow rural property owners to develop subdivisions outside the current Urban Services Line, while minimizing the problems created by sprawl growth. Clustering allows the same number of houses to be built, but requires them to be built on a portion of the property, preserving the remainder for agriculture or natural open space. Government services can be more efficiently delivered, valuable farmland remains productive, and the features that attract people to the countryside in the first place are permanently protected. Instead, the proposal before us tonight would remove the clustering requirement.

The two primary objections that have been raised to the adopted Comprehensive Plan are that it unduly restricts the rights of property owners to develop their land, and that effective growth management might drive up the cost of housing.

No landowner or developer can develop their property without public money for roads, schools, and public services. In addition, the consequences of growth are felt by all citizens. Elected representatives therefore have both the right and the responsibility to plan the expansion of infrastructure and services for new growth in a way that is cost-efficient for existing residents and taxpayers. The modest restrictions on development rights contained within the adopted Comprehensive Plan must be weighed against the consequences for all taxpayers of reckless, poorly planned growth.

Critics allege that the Comprehesive Plan will drive up the cost of housing. Another way of stating this is that the Plan will cause home and property values countywide to appreciate. Is this not the goal of the parties suing the county? The very name of one of the litigants, Preserving Rural Property Values, embodies this goal. When did appreciating housing values become a problem? The most important investment for most citizens is their home. If increasing home ownership rates is the goal, we must find a better solution than artificially depressing the value of existing homes.

In conclusion, I believe there is a more important issue than the relative merits of one policy over another. No matter where you stand on growth management issues, we should all agree on the critical need for a policy-making process that is understood and trusted by the public. If we proceed with Comprehensive Plan amendments based upon a mediated settlement between the county and the developers suing the county, we cut the general public out of the process. The clear message to the community would be that this commission gives top priority, and preferential treatment, to those who can afford to hire attorneys to represent their views.

Instead, we should proceed to a hearing on the lawsuit, so that a determination on the legal merits of the Comprehensive Plan can made. Any portions found to be in violation of the law can then be brought into compliance. The Plan could then be implemented without delay from further legal action. This is not to suggest that no changes should be made to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is intended to be flexible, and can be modified at any time to reflect the will of the electorate. But, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. The action on the table tonight is clearly the wrong way.

Back to Issue and Vote

Top