|
|
> Home > Point_CounterPoint Printer Friendly Version of Point_CounterPoint
|
HOW YOU CAN ANSWER THE
DEVELOPERS CLAIMS
“POINT
AND COUNTERPOINT”
Claim
#1:
The developers and land speculators claim that is it a
“taking” if the county refuses to change the land
use/zoning to allow more density on rural land. They say that
land speculators have a right to higher densities and higher profits
regardless of the harm to the river restoration.
Answer #1:
The law does NOT require that a community CHANGE land use/zoning to
make rural landowners rich or to provide an incentive program to
increase density to increase their profits. In Martin County
our
top priority is our river - it is dying. All citizens, the
economy, and our quality of life are impacted. The Indian
River
Lagoon Restoration Plan must be a top priority because it is the only
possibility of having a healthy river twenty years from now.
The
Rural Lands “Study” should have been clear on
this.
On 9/6/05 Commissioners voted to require the Study protect the Indian
River Lagoon Restoration lands footprint but then on 9/27/05,
the
Commission majority refused to include that protection in the Study.
Tell the Commission –
- We want the river saved
FIRST.
- We value our low density
life style and environmental protections.
- Don’t give away
the store by offering incentives (higher density) that makes us like
Broward County.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Claim #2:
Developers say 20 acre lots are the worse kind of sprawl.
Answer
#2:
Planning journals now report that many communities with 5, 2 or 1 acre
rural lots are trying to change to 20 acre lot sizes. Experts
testifying at the Governor’s Sustainable Treasure Coast
meetings
detailed the problems with 5 acre lots, but these problems
don’t
apply to Martin County’s 20-acre subdivision rules.
The
Martin County Planning Dept analysis shows that they more than pay
their way in taxes while smaller lots usually do not. In
Martin
County the 20 acre lot subdivisions have to follow all the rules:
developers must pave their internal roads; wetland
and
upland habitat preserves must be protected; standard houses
are
required; and urban services like water and sewer are prohibited.
Tell the Commission –
- We want to protect our
Martin County difference.
- We value our low density
life style and environmental protections.
- Keep the 20-acre lot size
rule and our urban growth boundary.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Claim
#3:
Developers claim that if we don’t increase rural
density,
we’ll be forced to increase density inside the urban growth
boundary. They claim “Martin County’s
Comprehensive Plan is a failure, and we must allow more rural
development
rights to save existing neighborhoods.”
Answer
#3:
There are NO
examples of Florida counties where increasing the rural density has
decreased urban density. We only have to look to the north
and south of us to see that more people on western
lands is accompanied by higher density in eastern areas. Urban land
owners and developers do not
reduce their demands for higher intensity because some rural land owner
has new development options. We need to keep the low density
of
one unit per 20 acres. It has 1/20th the impact of
one unit
per one acre, 1/20th the traffic, 1/20th the septic systems, and 1/20th
the impacts on our schools.
Tell
the Commission –
- Density matters, more people
have more impacts.
- Don’t give away
the store by offering incentives (higher density) that make
us like Broward County.
- Remove high density
in mixed use areas.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Claim
#4:
Developers say clustering is better than one unit in 20 acres.
Answer
#4:
Clustering is urban. When counties allowed towns or clusters
outside their urban growth boundary, they destroyed the growth boundary
and high density followed from seagrass to sawgrass. Clustering does
not save more environment.
Clusters want the land
“saved” for golf courses and other amenities to
increase the sales
price of the homes.
As the Harmony developer stated, in order to cluster they required four
times (or more) HIGHER density than they currently have a right to.
That amounts to 32,000 (and up) units outside the current urban
boundary instead of just the 8,000 – 9,000 maximum now.
Harmony demanded urban services, water and sewer, too. The
experts state that “Once these services are in place,
adjacent
undeveloped land will ask for (and get) higher densities.” Once
we allow development in the rural area for one developer, we can not
legally stop the others developers from building more clusters.
More people (more than 50,000 MORE people) means more
traffic,
schools, taxes, and more demands for services, regardless of whether
you cluster them.
Tell
the Commission –
- We want to protect our
Martin County difference.
- No urban, no clustering,
outside the urban growth boundary.
- Clustering will move or
remove the urban growth boundary.
|
|
