A recipe for sprawl
By Karl Nurse, Special to the Times
Published Friday, February 5, 2010
In November, Florida voters will decide the fate of Amendment 4, a controversial plan to change our state Constitution. Leading business, labor, planning, health care and good-government groups have opposed Amendment 4 because it will lead to higher taxes and fewer jobs. While the backers of Amendment 4 say that their proposal is good for the environment, they have failed to win the full support of Florida's environmental community.
The reason is simple: Amendment 4 may encourage sprawl, which is harmful to our environment and costly for taxpayers. In the long run, it will make it much harder for local governments to set aside parklands, encourage energy-efficient building, promote smarter growth and preserve green spaces.
By requiring a referendum for every change to a local government's comprehensive plan, Amendment 4 is likely to prompt votes on dozens -- and potentially hundreds -- of minor housekeeping issues. Plan changes that are good for the environment such as building a transit system, turning agricultural land into conservation land, or transforming an
abandoned commercial space into a public park, would become the victim of endless delays, higher costs and possible litigation. Local governments and environmental groups will lack the resources (or the legal ability) to push environmentally oriented plan amendments through
the crucible of a high-priced political campaign. The end result will not be a simple up or down vote on important issues. Most good ideas will never leave the drawing board.
For example, when the city of St. Petersburg adopted its original comprehensive plan in the 1980s, technology had not yet made possible the inclusion of energy-efficient building standards. When that technology became available in the 1990s, the City Council wisely
updated the comprehensive plan to encourage more environmentally sound building. Under Amendment 4, these types of revisions would have been expensive for taxpayers, cumbersome and long-delayed at best. At worst, they never would have happened.
The EPA has just announced new, tighter water and air pollution standards that local governments have to reach. These changes will require dozens of changes throughout every city's comprehensive plan. Amendment 4 would require a vote on each of these minor, technical amendments -- even though cities are required to make these changes. Under Amendment 4, taxpayers will be forced to pay for referendum after referendum until a sufficient number of proposals pass to meet the new pollution standards.
Similarly, Central Florida is about to embark on a series of major improvements to mass transit. The high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando will be funded with stimulus dollars. Hillsborough and Pinellas counties are both working on projects to connect light rail and
improved bus systems with high- speed rail. These projects will require comprehensive and land-use changes all along the rail corridors. Amendment 4 would require a separate vote for
each change, and in this case it would be hundreds of votes. This makes it less likely that these important transit projects will ever be built.
And Amendment 4 will not stop large developers. On the contrary, it will pave the way for sprawling development into the most pristine parts of our state.
Thousands of acres in Florida are set aside for "agricultural" use in existing comprehensive plans. By making plan changes virtually impossible within the "urban core," Amendment 4 would virtually guarantee the more rapid development of these environmentally sensitive
lands.
Amendment 4 will make comprehensive plan changes so expensive and time-consuming that well-planned development will become extremely difficult. Few companies will be willing to finance the media campaigns required to pursue comprehensive plan changes. Instead, they will pursue unchecked development in rural areas.
Although few leading environmental groups are happy with the status quo, few have been willing to endorse Amendment 4. The reason why: Two wrongs don't make a right.
Karl Nurse is a St. Petersburg City Council member. He is Pinellas County co-chairman of Floridians for Smarter Growth.
|
 |
|
Palm Bay gets tough on neglected pools
City will be able to treat water at abandoned homes
Click here to read this February 1, 2010 article in Florida Today by Susanne Cervenka.
|
CPSC Commission Meeting
Meeting rescheduled to discuss the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa Safety Act and Unblockable Drains/Minimum State Requirements for Grants/Public Accomodations
The CPSC had a hearing schedule for February 10 in Bethesda to discuss and possibly finalize what is considered an unblockable drain and the final interpretation of s 1406 of the VGB Act - the residential state grant program portion of the Act. However, due to the unprecedented weather the D.C. area received, this meeting was postponed.
Rescheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.at CPSC's headquarters: 4330 East West Highway, Room 420
|
|
|
Building Safety/Energy Efficiency - Pool Appliances
SB 648 by Bennett / HB 663 by Aubuchon
By Kari Hebrank
SB 648 by Sen. Bennett (R-Bradenton) and companion HB 663 by Rep. Aubuchon (R-Cape Coral) are intended to streamline building code and product approval functions, eliminate duplicative regulations, and bring "common sense" to various building safety regulations. Importantly for FSPA members, the bills include revisions to the energy efficiency requirements for swimming pool appliances. Specifically, the bills include FSPA's legislative initiatives to:
- Amend the temporary period that a pool pump motor's default circulation speed is allowed to be on high speed override from the current 120 minutes to a 24-hour standard;
- Clarify the energy efficiency provisions that apply to commercial and residential swimming pool heaters, and residential pool pumps and pool pump motors;
- Add "manufactured on or after July 1, 2011," rather than the current "sold after July 1, 2011" as to the effective date for the new efficiency standards.
Other highlights of the "everything but the kitchen sink" proposal are:
- Creates a streamlined product approval process, reducing the timeline from 4 months to 10 business days;
- Provides an expedited process for fire code interpretations;
- Provides for equivalency code standards to be incorporated expeditiously rather than delayed for the 3 -year code cycle;
- Provides that heat sensors and electronic sensor updates for existing elevators may not be enforced on elevators in condominiums until such time as the elevator is replaced;
- Allows for uniform lock box that contains the keys to all elevators in a building which allow public access in lieu of re-keying the elevators;
- Adds specific needs of public education and state facilities when agency rules must be updated to reflect federal requirements to acceptable criteria for "glitch" building code amendments;
- Prohibits requiring an existing air conditioning system installed on a roof be raised 18 inches up from the installed surface until such time as the system is replaced;
- Grants rule authority for commission relative to establishing voting requirements, such as super majority, for commission actions;
- Provides for alternative plan review and inspection process for certain inspections;
- Allows for payment of fees for product approval to be made directly to the program administrator and specifies that fees paid by product manufacturers only fund product approval system;
- Adds the International Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials to the statutory list of approved evaluation services;
- Clarifies the carbon monoxide alarm requirements;
- Eliminates the 5-year inspection by engineers of condominium improvements;
- Authorizes the commission to charge a fee for accessibility waivers, non-binding interpretations and declaratory statements;
- Includes additional options for energy efficiency of buildings and swimming pool appliances;
- Includes provisions relating to the regulation of home inspectors, mold assessors and mold remediators;
- Specifies the Code does not apply to temporary housing for prisoners; and,
- Authorizes local governments to implement flood resistance regulations.
STATUS: SB 648 passed S. Regulated Industries on Feb. 2 by a vote of 7-0. The bill travels next to S. Banking & Insurance. The companion, HB 663 will be heard first in H. Insurance, Business & Financial Affairs Committee.
|
|
|
| Unemployment compensation relief bill passes first committee
By Kari Hebrank
FSPA has been working with a coalition of business interests to address the huge price tag assigned to the increases in the unemployment compensation tax. Responding to our concerns, the Governor and House and Senate leadership have agreed to pass legislation during the first week of the upcoming Session to provide relief for Florida's employers. To this end, on Feb. 9, the House Economic Development & Community Affairs Policy Committee passed a proposed committee bill (PCB ECDA 10-01) to provide short-term relief from the increased unemployment compensation tax. The bill delays the increase from $7000 to $8500 in taxable wages for two years, until the year 2012. In 2012, the wage base returns to $8500 for 3 years, reverting back to $7000 in the year 2015. The bill also suspends the positive adjustment factor until 2012, regardless of the balance in the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund, thus no rate increase will be triggered. On Jan. 1, 2012, the positive adjustment factor is triggered for a period of three years to replenish the fund, and on Jan. 1, 2015, it reverts to a four-year recoupment period.
To further assist troubled employers, the bill allows for quarterly tax payments for 2010 and 2011 without interest or penalties. Moreover, the bill provides for payment of interest on federal advances through an employee assessment. Additionally, the bill extends unemployment compensation benefits for an additional 8 weeks for eligible claimants.
For employers paying the Minimum Rate at the $7000 wage base, unemployment compensation tax rates will rise from the current $8.40 to $25.30 per employee, whereas at the $8500 rate, the increase would have meant a cost of $100.30 per employee. The Maximum Rate at $7000 wage base remains at the current $378 per employee.
STATUS: PCB EDCA 10-01 was reported favorably by the H. Economic Development & Community Affairs Committee. An amendment was offered by Rep. Geraldine Thompson (D-Orlando) to add additional categories for unemployment compensation coverage such as part-time employees, victims of domestic violence, illness, family move that would require a commute, etc., but the amendment failed. Speaking against the expansion of benefits, Rep. Hooper commented that "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging," in reference to the insolvent fund. The Senate is expected to take up a similar measure next week.
|
|
|
|
Counties sue over new impact fee law
By Kari Hebrank
Last Session, FSPA teamed up with other construction and business interests to pass legislation (HB 227) that changed the burden of proof on impact fee challenges in order to level the playing field. Prior to the law's passage, local governments routinely won all impact fee challenges in court because the burden of proof standard was "fairly debatable," rather than a more equitable standard of "preponderance of the evidence."
On Feb. 10, the Florida Association of Counties filed suit against House Speaker Larry Cretul and Senate President Jeff Atwater in Leon County Circuit Court on grounds that the new law is unconstitutional. Nine additional counties along with the Florida League of Cities and the Florida Association of School Boards have joined the suit.
Elected local officials complain that the new law would allow judges to second guess decisions of lawmakers. "The act substantially alters the ability of local governments to impose or collect impact fees and places significant restrictions on the ability of cities and counties to raise revenue through impact fees in the aggregate," the suit reads. FSPA will be meeting with other stakeholders to evaluate options to counter the lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
Florida Swimming Pool Association
2555 Porter Lake Drive
Sarasota, Florida 34240
941-952-9293 |
|
|
