A super plan for smart growth
A Times EditorialPublished October 12, 2006
Smart growth management.
The term is used routinely to substantiate the positions of bulldoze-and-build, as well as grow-slow, advocates.
A proposal now before the Hernando County Commission - a law that would require a supermajority of the commission to amend the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan - provides an opportunity for sincere advocates of smart growth to prove it by raising the bar for significant land use debates.
The comprehensive plan is the county's guiding light for growth. It is a document that was carefully crafted and approved by the state almost 17 years ago. Other than the routine matters that bring it into compliance with state laws, it has been changed sparingly over the years.
With the population surge in recent years, requests to amend the plan have increased. The most notable recent one is for Hickory Hill, a gated 1,700-home subdivision with three golf courses in the Spring Lake area. (It is important to note that even if the proposed supermajority requirement becomes law, it will not affect Hickory Hill; a simple majority vote will decide that project.)
This proposal, first suggested by Commissioner Jeff Stabins more than a year ago, and now supported by Commissioners Chris Kingsley and Diane Rowden, would ensure that any change to the comp plan would be the result of an overwhelming consensus - four of five - elected representatives. The first of two public hearings on this topic will be held Tuesday in Brooksville.
Setting a higher standard for altering that essential rule book makes sense.
Hillsborough and Collier counties, for example, have worked with it as a matter of law for at least 15 years. One key difference is that those counties require only a simple majority vote to transmit a comp plan amendment to the Department of Community Affairs, but a supermajority of commissioners must approve the final proposal after it has been scrutinized by the state. Hernando County should copy that stipulation.
In those counties, the condition of a supermajority vote has not been detrimental to their growth management plans. It has not created a logjam of proposed comp plan amendments. It has not spawned a wave of partisan disagreements. And it has not made the counties more vulnerable to lawsuits from developers.
It simply has given this vital document another layer of protection from those who might try to compromise its purpose, and it has insisted that commissioners be in almost unanimous agreement that changes are consistent with the public's interest.
The supermajority vote requirement would apply only to changing the comp plan. All other matters, with the exception of raising or lowering the local option fuel tax, would still be decided by a simple majority vote.
Critics' primary argument against the supermajority requirement is that it enables a minority of the commission to overrule the majority. They have attempted to characterize it as an assault on democracy and the tenet of majority rule. It is unfortunate they have resorted to that sort of demagogic debate instead of examining the proposal on its merits and its potential to strengthen the county's land use planning.
Most votes on comp plan amendments have passed by a supermajority. According to research provided by the county's planning staff, all amendments that have been adopted by the commission since 2000 passed with at least four votes. There is no indication that suddenly would change to a spate of 3-2 votes if the supermajority requirement becomes law.
Also, the proposed ordinance would not take effect until Jan. 1, 2007, which means that any applications to amend the comp plan between now and then eventually could be passed by a simple majority.
This measure, like the fuel tax, provides a means to set the comp plan apart from ordinances about yard sales or licensing pets. It is that important and it deserves a chance to succeed. If it does not, the commission can always repeal the law - with a simple majority vote.