Maggy Hurchalla's message on history and preserving rural lands for agricultural uses. There is this myth that once upon a time everyone was polite and that all the commissioners and developers loved the environment and protected our quality of life. I was there. I can tell you that that is hogwash. During most of the 20 years I was a county commissioner, the battles were vicious and the majority of commissioners were pro development. So why is Martin County different? Planners and consultants and commissioners didn’t give us a great comprehensive plan. The hopeful and stubborn people of Martin County did. They insisted on a Growth Management Plan which is strict enough and specific enough that even bad guys could not easily give away the county’s future. We made developers and commissioners follow the rules to keep Martin County special. We can do it again. 82% of residents say they want to slow growth.
Make the rules clear and follow the rules. Most important, listen to what Martin County residents want. WHAT’S BEST - clustering or keep the 1 unit in 20 acre land use for rural lands? Is it true that the worst possible scenario for the rural lands from I-95 to Lake Okeechobee is to keep the Comp Plan policy of 20 acre lot sizes? What about the services that the 20 acre lots will require? How about clustering? Would this save most of the rural area and concentrate development in clusters? Clustering requires water, sewer and other urban services. Once these services are in place, adjacent undeveloped land will ask for (and get) higher densities because the services are there and the urban use pattern is established. Once we allow development in the rural area for one developer, how can we legally stop the others developers from building more clusters? Is the clustered pattern of development worse than 20 acre lots? |