Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies

Farming enclaves not heaven to their owners

Fenced in by neighbors, some farmers want to sell to developers. Opponents say mandating rezonings would bring runaway growth.

GAINESVILLE - The view down the middle of Bill Deas' rye field is classic North Florida farm country: tall, brown grass interrupted only by clusters of oaks and a John Deere tractor preparing the field for the spring peanut crop.

A wider perspective, however, spoils the pastoral scene. Just beyond the fences are mobile homes on one-acre lots with trucks, boats, above-ground swimming pools and plastic playground equipment.

Deas calls this field an "agricultural enclave" because it is nearly surrounded by development. A bill moving through the Legislature is designed to make it easier to develop such isolated rural properties.

"I believe this is the prototypical parcel that the bill was written for," said Deas, 57, a rancher, lawyer and agricultural rights activist who leases the land west of Gainesville to the peanut farmer.

The agricultural interests behind the proposal say farmers need the bill to receive fair value for land that spreading urbanization has made increasingly difficult and expensive to farm.

But its critics - including environmentalists, county governments and, to a lesser extent, Gov. Jeb Bush - say the bill runs directly counter to one of the state's most urgent needs. Just as the state is getting serious about controlling growth, they say, this bill opens an avenue for unrestrained development.

"I think the governor is extremely frustrated and embarrassed by this legislation," said Eric Draper, policy director for Audubon of Florida. "He asked the Legislature to do something about growth management, and here they are passing bad bills."

The bill defines enclaves as rural parcels with development - or permitted development - on 75 percent of the perimeter. Such land should be protected from state and local laws aimed at blocking controls on sprawl, the bill says.

Audubon calls the bill "the antithesis of sound growth management" and says it all but requires local governments to approve development in rural areas.

But the enclave bill - or, as it is officially called, the Agricultural Economic Development Bill - has passed the state House and has wide support in the Senate. Bush vetoed a similar bill last year and earlier this month listed several objections to a new version. But he also suggested changes that "would probably solve the problems I have with the bill."

Environmentalists said they wouldn't have a major problem with the bill if it applied only to parcels like Deas', which covers 140 acres and has been virtually enveloped with sprawling development previously approved by the county.

Instead, they say, the proposal's definition of "enclaves" is too broad and vague; proponents have no idea how much land it might affect; and it is loaded with potentially destructive clauses, including one that cuts the time counties have to negotiate some property rights disputes from 180 to 90 days.

The Florida Association of Counties objects because it prevents them from stopping bad projects and strips their power to make them better.

"It takes away the county's ability to plan," said association spokeswoman Kriss Vallese.

She and other opponents also say the proposal is tailored to suit Nat Roberts, the manager and part-owner of a 4,000-acre citrus grove in western Palm Beach County; he is seeking to develop the grove and has hired an influential lobbyist to push the bill.

"It deals probably with a single piece of property that creates legislation for the entire state," Bush said earlier this month.

Senate President Tom Lee, who has advocated better growth management, expressed concern about taking land-use decisions away from local governments and "applying a one-size-fits all solution in a state that is extremely diverse."

In an attempt to satisfy Lee and Bush, a new Senate version has modified the bill's controversial provision on maximum enclave size.

Though the bill sets this at 2,560 acres, previous language allowed that to be doubled to 8 square miles if it was within 5 miles of an area damaged by hurricanes or agricultural pests; critics said that would include most of the state.

The new version allows larger enclaves in a county, "any portion of which is under a declared quarantine" for citrus canker. That would cover nearly all of South Florida and several other urban counties - including Sarasota and Orange - likely affected by the bill, said Charles Lee, Audubon's senior vice president.

"In some cases, this makes it worse," Lee said.

Roberts' lobbyist, David Ramba, said he approved of the new language. "I just wanted to make sure my guy was taken care of," he said.

The bill, Roberts said, does not give him the right to develop his property as densely as he has proposed - with 10,000 residential units and several million square feet of retail and office space.

It should, however, allow him to develop at the density of most of the surrounding land, which is about one unit per acre.

Nancy Argenziano, R-Dunnellon, one of the bill's sponsors, said the environmentalists' concerns are overstated. The proposal addresses just one restraint on development - the rules on sprawl - but would still allow local governments to reject developments for other reasons, such as inadequate roads, she said.

Not all the enclave owners want to sell their land, she said; they want the right to develop it so they can qualify for bigger loans that might allow them to continue farming.

Farming is not easy on the edge of the suburbs, Deas said.

His neighbors often complain to county authorities about what he says are normal features of agriculture: the smell of livestock, the noise of equipment and, in one case, that Deas was working cattle with dogs. Dealing with these complaints, he said, has cost him valuable hours in the field.

He raised cattle on the property until a few years ago, when vandals from the mobile home park cut a fence that allowed a bull to escape, which cost Deas $800 to retrieve.

The farmer who now leases the land once spent $4,800 to repair his tractors after teenagers from a nearby neighborhood poured sand into the fuel tanks during harvest season.

Deas, a sixth-generation Floridian, said his father bought the 140-acre parcel more than 50 years ago for about $130 an acre. Deas owns 1,000 acres in Alachua and Levy counties, but this parcel, which is about 5 miles west of Gainesville, has the most development potential. "People don't understand, this is my 401(k)," he said.

Deas is on the board of the Alachua County Farm Bureau and was part of a group that recently settled a lawsuit claiming the county's comprehensive plan placed unfair restrictions on farmland.

One-acre lots in the adjacent mobile home development sell for $35,000, Deas said. Because Alachua County has refused to increase the density on his land from one unit per 5 acres, the most he could receive is $7,000 an acre, he said.

"Why should I be forced to sell at a huge discount just because the county has downzoned my property?" said Deas.

But this land has never been "downzoned," said Janet Bowman, legal director for 1,000 Friends of Florida, which advocates responsible growth.

Almost all of Florida's farmland was originally purchased for that purpose. Nothing prevents rural landowners from selling it for farming - or for low-density residential development - usually at many times the price they or their families paid for it.

With this bill, farmers are asserting their right "to maximum development potential" for their land, said Bowman.

The real problem in Florida is not that counties are withholding this right, she said, but that they grant it too carelessly.

"It's usually not a problem when rural landowners want to change the density of their property," she said. "What we've seen is the opposite problem."

Staff Writer Joni James contributed to this report. Dan DeWitt can be reached at 352 754-6116. Send e-mail to dewitt@sptimes.com