In 2011, the Florida Legislature and Governor Rick Scott gave the people of our state a priceless treasure. They abolished the Department of Community Affairs, dropped many of the state mandates, and returned local control of planning to each local community. The State Statute is 163.3161: County Organization and Intergovernmental Relations also known as the “Community Planning Act.” In essence, the state turned over planning to local government. They ended a 30 year “Smart Growth “ mandate. It is imperative that conservatives become involved in this process, or the gift from our Legislature and Governor Scott will be left to those who are taking us into a sea of yet more regulations, laws and control; away from our private property rights.
In our pioneer history, government viewed the intrepid souls who ventured into unknown and often hostile territory to tame and hold the land, as a valuable and necessary asset. They were encouraged to risk all for the rewards of owning private property at little or no monetary cost. They were free to choose the best land with access to life-giving water. No one dictated how they would use that land or water. Private property rights were alive and well. Government extended its power through every pioneer who survived the hardships to hold the land in the building of our country. These pioneers are a large part of our American heritage right here in Hernando County. We owe them the honor of defending the property rights for which many fought and died.
What better way to do that than to reinstate our private property rights and to be good stewards of the land? In the October 2015 edition of FLORIDAGRICULTURE, Florida Farm Bureau president John L. Hoblick, wrote an article titled “Recognizing Conservation By Private Landowners.” He quotes a 1937 essay by noted forester and ecologist Aldo Leopold, who wrote that “The real substance of conservation lies not in the physical projects of government, but in the mental processes of citizens.” This may be his “government by consent, not force” statement. Better results will be achieved if people believe in policies to conserve the land they own, not ruled, regulated, fined and forced into it.
Farm Bureau promotes the CARES Program; County Alliance for Responsible Environmental Stewardship. They have recognized and rewarded over 700 outstanding farm families who voluntarily serve as first guardians of land and water. The key here is “voluntarily,” by consent and not force. Most families do care about the land on which they live. As the article states, “They cannot remove overnight the effects of centuries of human habitation in Florida, but they improve their corners of God’s creation each day after the sun rises.”
Further he states, “Government ownership of land is not the solution to conserving natural resources. Taxpayers pay three times when government buys land. They must pay for the purchase, they must pay for the maintenance of the acreage and they must pay for the loss of local tax revenue caused by transfer from private hands to public ownership….government agencies do not have the ability to replace private owners as effective stewards.” “…incentive-based strategies, nurturing citizens’ property rights, yield the best results for conserving our state’s natural abundance.”
Like the example set by Farm Bureau, we need more options and recognition for property owners who voluntarily conserve land and open space, rather than mandates as in the current and Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. When one realizes that currently about one-third of Hernando County land is in Conservation status, the enormity of this problem becomes clear. At least 42 other counties in Florida have less land in conservation status than Hernando County, some as low as 3%. Fourteen have about the same, and only 11 have a much higher rate, especially in the Everglades area. With Environmentally Sensitive Lands programs, even more is desired for acquisition, to be taken from private hands, into government keeping. With other government ownership, around 45% of land in Hernando is out of private ownership. Open space restrictions on Rural lands further limit human habitation. Enough is enough!
Our own Hernando County Commission has been effectively selling off a number of acquisitions, putting them back on the tax roles, lessening the overall tax burden for each citizen. Their continued refusal to acquire even more land is one of the greatest defenses of private property rights in our county since the State first mandated comprehensive plans. We need to support and encourage their stand against further acquisitions.
Other comprehensive plans in Florida, more user friendly than our Draft 2040 Plan, paint a clear picture. Levy County uses charts which are easy to understand. All categories of land are listed with the number of acres in each category. Levy has only 19% of its land in conservation, and has had no plans to acquire more from 1995 through 2020. Why have we not taken a similar stand? Pasco County states that 22% of their land is in Conservation, and has recently reduced plans by environmentalists to expand more wildlife corridors. Pasco also does not have mandatory open space requirements. If a landowner wishes to use all 100 acres of their property, they may do just that, but lot sizes are to be 10 acres. If the owner chooses to leave open space, then they are rewarded with more density per acre. Examples for densities range from 2.2 to 5 acres per dwelling. Although not a total reinstatement of private property rights, it does offer options instead of absolutes. Martin County’s rural density is listed at one dwelling per 2 acres. There are many unique and varied plans.
Trying to understand Hernando County’s Draft 2040 Plan is confusing at best. One change is clear; residential density changed from a maximum of 16 dwellings to 18 dwellings per acre. The two of us have differing opinions on what the densities are in different categories, especially rural, even though we’ve read it over many times. There are no charts, as in many counties to make understanding simple. There is no “strike to delete” and “underline to add” as is common legal procedure. New categories such as “Ecological Linkages” (which covers about one-third of the county) and “Countryside Community” have been added.
The best that we can decipher, is that any size parcel of land for new development in the Ecological Linkages area must leave at least 50% open space, and if it’s one acre or more in a platted neighborhood, that becomes an incredible 65% open space. There are also lighting, fencing and clustering restrictions with alignment of buildings with neighboring parcels to leave wildlife corridors. Since currently, in 1.03 B (3), any parcel less than 20 acres has no open space restrictions at all, or from 20 to 100 acres, only 30%, this becomes an additional burdensome restriction for this category.
In the Countryside Community Category, forty acres or more developed “within the Rural Future Land Use Category”, will require clustering, 50% open space, aligned usage of the properties to leave wildlife corridors, as well as lighting and fencing restrictions. Currently, rural lands between 20 and 100 acres are required to leave only 30% open space. This feels like unequal treatment under the law. This could well impact land sales and development when other surrounding counties are more flexible and less restrictive.
The open space requirements for the rest of the Rural category seem to have disappeared, but a call to the Planning Department says they still exist in the form of county ordinances, they’re just not listed. (We desperately need some charts!) What is clear, is that if you live in that third of Hernando County called Ecological Linkages, you have new restrictions. While it may not impact current residents at this point, knowing how government and the environmental strategists work, this is just a foot in the door. More restrictions are sure to come; more ways to carve up our property rights. We need to close the door now, before it’s too late.
There are many smaller and varying restrictions, but the next major statement comes under the heading of Ecological Linkages Objective 1.03E. Letter “a” states that Class I wetlands shall be maintained as open space. The current plan allows for one dwelling in a 40 acre parcel. In Pasco, at least one dwelling per 20 acres is allowed in Class I wetlands. Here is another added restriction on private property rights. Evidently, there are many other options statewide.
If we haven’t confused you by now, you deserve a prize. We need fewer mandates and more voluntary actions.
Our planners who wrote the 1989 Plan wanted 2 ½ acres to 5 acres for Rural densities. That is much less restrictive than current mandates. They did not favor open space requirements. The State at that time, however, did. Hernando County was required to use the numbers in 1.01 B (3) against their wishes. This type of state level management has changed, though.
In 2011, the Florida Legislature and Governor Rick Scott gave the people of our state a priceless treasure. They abolished the Department of Community Affairs, dropped many of the state mandates, and returned local control of planning to each local community. The State Statute is 163.3161: County Organization and Intergovernmental Relations also known as the “Community Planning Act”. In essence, the state turned over planning to local government. They ended a 30 year “Smart Growth “ mandate. It is imperative that conservatives become involved in this process, or the gift from our Legislature and Governor Scott will be left to those who are taking us into a sea of yet more regulations, laws and control; away from our private property rights.
Section 10 of this statute (S.S. 163.3161) is an excellent defense of private property rights:
“(10) It is the intent of the Legislature that all governmental entities in this state recognize and respect judicially acknowledged or constitutionally protected private property rights. It is the intent of the Legislature that all rules, ordinances, regulations, comprehensive plans and amendments thereto, and programs adopted under the authority of this act must be developed, promulgated, implemented, and applied with sensitivity for private property rights and not be unduly restrictive, and property owners must be free from actions by others which would harm their property or which would constitute an inordinate burden on property rights as those terms are defined in s. 70.001(3)(e) and (f). Full and just compensation or other appropriate relief must be provided to any property owner for a governmental action that is determined to be an invalid exercise of the police power which constitutes a taking, as provided by law. Any such relief must ultimately be determined in a judicial action.”
Section 10 of the Community Planning Act should be included in our Comprehensive Plan. Further, this action was taken because conservatives realized how harmful property restrictions are for business and the economy.
From an article by Wendell Cox, October 7th of 2011:
“The state of Florida has repealed its 30-year old growth management law (also called “smart growth”, “compact development” and “livability”). Under the law, local jurisdictions were required to adopt comprehensive land use plans stipulating where development could and could not occur. These plans were subject to approval by the State Department of Community Affairs, an agency now abolished by the legislation.” Governor Rick Scott had urged repeal as a part of his program to create jobs, because global research has associated slower economic growth with growth management programs. “Local governments will still be permitted to implement growth management programs, but largely without state mandates.”
On the State level, Governor Scott and the Legislature have also considerably reduced the activities of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Now when our planning department says that the state made them do it, we really wonder just how much is mandatory and how much is the well-meaning Utopian world they have created in their own minds, in which they wish us to live. With the freedom restored to us by the acts of 2011, we need to take back our private property rights. We believe this trend is changing nationwide also. Our current President has already reduced the influence of the EPA, turning power back to the states, and has even expressed a desire to open up portions of National Parks and Forests for sale to the public.
How sad that people are being punished, by restrictions placed on their private property because their ancestors had the wisdom to choose prime land with abundant water, wildlife and trees and the fortitude to survive. The same can be said for people who since, have had the good fortune to be able to purchase quality land in Hernando County.
May 2nd is the date set at the County Government Center in Brooksville for a workshop on the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Be sure to confirm the date and a time as it sometimes changes. Please get involved. It may be the most important thing you do for the future of our county.
Other articles in this series:
CRITIQUE OF THE HERNANDO COUNTY 2040 DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Part 1)
Critique of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Part 2: Property Rights
Critique of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Part 3: Chapter 10 Conservation
Critique of the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Part 4: “Smart Growth” Strategies (Chapters 1 and 5)