Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Lawmakers try to confine sprawl

By JONI JAMES and DAN DeWITT
Published April 25, 2005

An agreement by House and Senate leaders to spend $1.5-billion on roads, schools and water projects raises the stakes on how to manage growth.

TALLAHASSEE - From the rostrum of the Florida Senate, new President Tom Lee made it clear five months ago that his priority would be getting a handle on the state's runaway growth.

"The more we grow, the further we're getting behind," the Brandon Republican told senators in his inaugural address. "Without adequate transportation, classroom space, parks and water resources, we will undoubtedly kill the goose that lays the golden egg for long-term economic development."

Last week, Lee cleared the highest hurdle to that goal: money.

House Speaker Allan Bense agreed to spend $1.5-billion next year - and $750-million annually in the future - for building desperately needed roads, schools and water projects.

How do you spend the money wisely?

That's the major policy decision facing state lawmakers as they return today for the last two weeks of their annual session.

It's as high-stakes as it gets in Tallahassee, where growth management touches some of the state's most influential special interests, from home builders and banks to environmentalists and farmers. Even city and county governments have competing interests as lawmakers tinker with development planning rules or local tax revenues.

In such a quagmire, there is a patch of common ground.

Proposals drafted by the House and Senate make some attempt to control sprawling development, which is more expensive and environmentally destructive than compact growth.

Both chambers also want to narrow the gap between the time that developments are approved and needed roads, schools and water projects are completed.

But huge discrepancies remain.

How do you assure that local governments say no when development doesn't pay for itself? Should it be easier for local governments to raise taxes to pay for libraries, local roads, sewers and parks?

And with a backlog of at least $35-billion in state road, water and school projects - and an unknown backlog in local projects - does the state need to spend even more?

Lee repeated again last week that it may take more than a year to resolve these issues. But as negotiations begin again today, here are the parameters:

Limits on sprawl

The House and Senate use financial incentives to encourage compact growth.

The Senate wants local governments to establish "urban service boundaries" to designate areas for dense development.

County commissions that create these boundaries would win new authority to raise local gas and sales taxes without voter approval. That would help pay for more local roads, sewer plants and parks. The Senate also would require all new money to be spent within the service boundary.

The House plan is to encourage more compact development by distributing transportation money.

The House originally called for a one-time infusion of $450-million in road money to go to local governments that came up with matching funds.

The money would be spent only on roads in already developed areas, not on the fringes of urban areas. The House also proposed spending another $200-million on water sources and encouraging charter schools in urban areas.

It's unclear, however, whether the House will push to expand the concept, now that much more money is available than the $650-million the House originally proposed.

But some worry that if lawmakers allow the money to be spent on any road project, the additional funds will do nothing to control sprawl.

"I would hope the smart growth incentives stay in the bill," said Janet Bowman of 1000 Friends of Florida, which advocates controlled growth.

But the Senate's plan also has a potential weakness: It depends on local officials willing to raise taxes. Elected officials tend to be skittish about raising taxes without the political cover of a referendum.

To the Florida Home Builders Association, however, curbing sprawl will increase the cost of housing by limiting developable land.

"It just makes the dirt more expensive," said Douglas Buck, the organization's director of governmental affairs.

But to environmentalists, neither chamber's plan does enough to contain development because they do not protect large, environmentally significant areas and offer no new money for acquiring land.

"We're consuming 200,000 acres of open space per year," said Eric Draper, policy director for Audubon of Florida. "If you continue at this pace, with this policy, it all gets developed."

Match with services

In an ideal world, when a new subdivision opens, the roads, schools and water to serve it also are available.

Neither the House nor the Senate would demand that, though both seek to better tie new development to schools and water. They also tighten current requirements that a government provide roads within five years after a development is finished.

The Senate wants to require schools and roads within three years from the time new development is approved; the House, three years from the time the project is completed.

That forces local governments to guess on completion times when they approve projects.

The House plan also lacks enforcement, while the Senate bill threatens to thwart changes to a community's growth plan if services do not match growth.

"The Senate bill is much more direct," said Charles Lee, a senior vice president for Audubon of Florida.

Money to meet goals

As important as growth planning and concurrency are, the biggest fight over the next two weeks will be over money.

Senate President Lee and Gov. Jeb Bush said there's not enough money and want lawmakers to ask voters in November 2006 to borrow at least $8-billion.

Lee and Bush want to use the state's current system for setting road, school and water priorities, while the House favors grants.

Perhaps even more controversial is the Bush-Lee proposal to make it easier for county commissions to raise local taxes.

Legislative staff estimate that could generate as much as $4.5-billion more annually.

So far, however, the House says no.

"I don't know if I have the votes in the House to get that passed," Bense said last week. "I've had a lot of members come and say, "Speaker, I love you, but I have some heartburn raising local taxes - any taxes - when we have such a strong budget year."

[Last modified April 25, 2005, 01:04:14]