Efforts to Limit Growth and Development

Over the past decade or so, several states have seen efforts by special interest groups to try to place constitutional limitations on development activity. The method used generally is to try to put a referendum on the ballot during statewide elections, such as the recent mid-term elections. The sponsors of these initiatives are those, who for various reasons, steadfastly oppose any further growth in communities. Never mind the tragic consequences that may have on the economy in that community. St. Pete Beach, Florida is a good case in point.

The goal is to force all new development proposals to be placed on the ballot for electorate in the affected jurisdiction - usually a city or county - to cast their respective votes for or against the proposal. In other words, what ordinarily is a task for the municipality's elected officials to decide becomes a matter for decision by the entire electorate.

These efforts often have compelling titles. For example, in Florida, the most recent effort was called "Home Town Democracy", also known by a more plebeian name, Amendment 4. The proposal was defeated by a significant majority of the voters in Florida, as has been the case in other states, so far. But the people sponsoring these proposals will continue to try to press their will on the public.

So, how exactly would this limitation work? If, for example, the one in Florida had succeeded, it would have required most proposed amendments to a municipality's comprehensive growth plan to be placed on the ballot at the next general election. Comprehensive growth plans (GMPs) are maps outlining in general terms how a city's or county's growth and development should occur over time. The principal idea is to insure that capital facilities, such as roads, schools, sewer and water, are in place to accommodate the growth rather than resulting in overburdened infrastructure and the resulting negative impact on the quality of life of the citizenry. Because these guidelines necessarily are general in nature and require flexibility to accommodate the unforeseeable changes and developments that are sure to arise over time, there usually is some process for amending the GMP.

As a general example, if a land owner wanted to change the land use designation for a parcel of property she owned from commercial to residential, she would seek an amendment to the GMP. Her proposal would be reviewed by the municipality's planning staff and sent to the governing body of elected officials with a recommendation for or against the proposal. The city council or county commission, with input from state agencies and after notification to affected landowners, would determine whether to grant or deny the proposal in a public hearing. It's worth noting that in areas where growth is occurring, it is conceivable that hundreds of these proposed amendments could be on the ballot in any given election. Are individual voters going to take time to study each proposal and give its due? It's very doubtful. The voting process involves lengthy lines and long ballots as it is.

Under this scenario, which exists in many states, these decisions are made by the public's elected representatives after various open public hearings, notifications mailed to affected parties, and input from a number of sources including the individual members of the public. Some jurisdictions even solicit public opinion surveys and questionnaires, as well as public hearings in various specific locations within the community. Sure sounds like representative democracy at work.

So, what is it the proponents of these ballot initiatives seek to achieve by taking land use decisions out of the hands of duly elected public officials and requiring the entire electorate to make decisions? Just this; they don't like a process that gives each proposed development activity an opportunity to stand on its own. By moving the decision making to a laborious and demanding process for each individual elector, it almost assures that the mass of proposals will fail. Other than Congressmen, voters rarely vote in favor of something complex that they haven't had time to sufficiently understand.

It is certain that these initiatives will continue to appear on ballots at the state and local levels anywhere there is healthy development activity. Just remember: when you stop growth, you impair economic activity, which in turn leads to decline and higher taxes to cover the resulting shortfall.

Connect with us: visit facebook; twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, the Falbey Institute for the Development of Real Estate. There currently is a special on the real estate development videos available on the Institute's web site.

©2010 by The Falbey Institute for the Development of Real Estate