Jump to content

ISSUE: Miami's Urban Development Boundary


Brickell

Recommended Posts

^In South Florida, new urban development is not only the "trendy" thing to do, it's the smart thing to do as well.

We've run out of room, and demand has gone up. It's as simple as that. Where do you put the influx of people? On top of each other, in Downtown [insert municipality here]!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Posted on Tue, Jun. 07, 2005

SOUTH MIAMI-DADE

Alvarez seeks to stop Florida City expansion

Environmentalists and County Mayor Carlos Alvarez say the County Commission should deny an annexation request by Florida City.

BY NOAKI SCHWARTZ

[email protected]

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez is joining environmentalists in asking county commissioners to deny a request by Florida City to annex a large swath of south county wetlands.

The site is outside the Urban Development Boundary, which is designed to prevent urban sprawl into the Everglades. If commissioners approve the request today, opponents say it could open the door for development on open lands elsewhere in the county, threatening wildlife and wetlands.

More: Miami Herald

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This afternoon, county commissioners voted in favor of an annexation request by Florida City. This land falls outside the Urban Development Boundary. The vote was 7-5 in favor.

Three county agencies, including the Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), the Department of Planning and Zoning, and the Planning Advisory Board all expressed their vehement opposition to the annexation. Despite the data and information provided to the Board by county staff, the commissioners who voted in favor did not believe that the annexation issue was directly related to a technically separate request to move the Urban Development Boundary. They reasoned that Florida City was simply seeking to increase its tax base by collecting the revenue on the ranchettes currently in the area. They further stated that even though the land would be annexed into Florida City and be added to its tax rolls, the county would retain full zoning control over the land outside the UDB.

Those opposed to the annexation argued that the information they had to work with was incomplete, as several studies had not yet been finalized, including a major watershed study for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP). Issues such as flooding were also brought up. Two commissioners also noted that there was unincorporated land within the UDB southwest of Florida City that it could annex. Miami-Dade's Director of Planning and Zoning provided data showing that the land to the southwest could be developed for much denser land uses and provide much more revenue to the city. If it turns out that the land will need to be acquired for CERP, then this land will be of no value to the city.

A motion to defer the item failed. Commissioners Carey-Shuler, Gimenez, Heyman, Sorenson, and Sosa voted against the annexation. Commissioners Barreiro, Diaz, Jordan, Martinez, Moss, Rolle, and Seijas voted in favor. Commissioner Souto was not present.

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez has been an outspoken opponent of this annexation since the beginning and is likely to exercise his veto power on this action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted on Wed, Jun. 08, 2005

SOUTH MIAMI-DADE

City wins a round in battle for border

Florida City's wish to annex a chunk of undeveloped land got the OK from a divided County Commission, but it continued to draw protests from critics who say it is a harbinger of urban sprawl.

BY TERE FIGUERAS NEGRETE

[email protected]

A controversial push by Florida City to annex a swath of land outside the county's urban development boundary passed the County Commission on Tuesday, but the fight is far from over.

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez is considering a veto of the vote, which narrowly passed the commission with a 7-5 vote, potentially making the South Miami-Dade city's victory short-lived.

Critics have criticized Florida City's designs on the nearly 2,000 acres at the mouth of the Keys as a thinly veiled attempt to lay the groundwork for changing the urban development boundary line -- the border that shields agricultural and environmental resources from urban sprawl...

More: Miami Herald

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As expected, Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez has vetoed the Florida City annexation, passed by the County Commission on June 7th. The Commission needs 9 votes to override the Mayor's veto. This will be difficult because the annexation passed only 7 to 5, with one commissioner absent.

More details can be found here: Miami Herald: Mayor vetoes plan to annex land

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, it just seems that certain commissioners just don't get it. This Tuesday Miami-Dade commissioners were successful in overriding Mayor Carlos Alvarez's veto of the Florida City annexation. The vote was 8 to 4, a 2/3 majority of members present. One commissioner, Carlos Gimenez, was traveling abroad on official county business and could not make it for the vote. He voted against the annexation in the first vote. Commissioner Javier Souto, who was not present at the last meeting, was the one vote that made the super-majority possible.

The politicking that was involved in this matter is beyond egregious and unethical. I say Commissioner Barbara Jordan should have recused herself from this vote. How can she make an impartial decision on such an important issue, involving her own brother, the mayor of the city submitting the application? Her own brother?!? Come on! Or how about her sister having ties to the developer that has hinted at wanting to build on that property if the UDB gets moved? And I have no doubt that they probably broke Sunshine laws and discussed what their plans were going to be before the board meeting. What an incredible abuse of power.

The most ridiculous thing I've heard to date is that siblings are not considered "immediate family" under county ethics rules, so an elected official would not have to recuse herself on such an important vote. Why does that not surprise me? Well, because I'm sure the people who probably wrote them, the commissioners, already thought of it and conveniently left out this particular relationship. If this doesn't show that there needs to be a better balance of power between the legislative and executive in this county, I don't know what does. Or amending the ethics rules, without a doubt. I would go even farther by proposing that any annexation or incorporation that occurs outside of the boundary line must be approved by at least 60% of all voters in the county. Furthermore, to keep the UDB line from being moved for the sole purpose of bypassing this requirement, the UDB should only be moved after it has the support of staff, is approved by commissioners by a 2/3 or 3/4 majority, the mayor, and finally the voters.

There is plenty of land for Florida City to annex that is fully within the UDB. And there is plenty of unused property within the city limits that could be developed into a lucrative tax base, if they would use their land efficiently instead of in the haphazard way it is developed now. Yes, legally, the land can't be developed beyond 5 units per acre and doesn't have water and sewer hookup. But with people like Jordan, Seijas, Rolle, and Martinez (the most vocal annexation proponents, the latter being the commission chairman) in power, who have no concern for or understanding of the impact their decision has made, what's to keep them from moving the line over in the next UDB review (CDMP hearing) and then instantly legalize more sprawling development?

The point is, there no be zero municipalities outside the UDB. Otherwise, what's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think expanding the UDB is bound to happen.

Let's look at the facts.

The median single-family home in Dade now costs over $350,000. This is unaffordable to our police officers, teachers, firefighters, nurses, etc. Rich foreign investors from New York, Latin America, Europe, retirees from the Northeast with money to burn from selling their inlfated homes, people all over the world seeking vacation homes, the save our homes amendment that is limiting new supply on the market....all these factors are increasing the cost of a home.

And lots of people don't like condos or townhouses. We may do but most people don't. They want the American dream. A 7500 sq. foot lot with a backyard and pool.

That's why the UDB will be expanded and there is nothing that can be done to prevent it from happening.

The market in the end will decide and $350,000 homes are not affordable. $179,000 homes in Florida City outside the current UDB are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would caution anyone who thinks that moving the line will fix the problem to think again and carefully. It only prolongs the inevitable. It doesn't fix the issue of the affordability of housing in the long term. As soon as that land becomes available for development, the price of that land is going to be at a premium. And who's to say that the houses south of Florida City are going to cost that little? The Florida City mayor is talking about those low-density ranchettes outside the UDB that he wants to develop and selling them for as much as $1 million. And then imagine the commute times and the horrible traffic that will bring to overburdened roads such as the Palmetto and 836.

So move the line again, you say? ok, so what happens once you've moved that line so far out that moving it another 5 miles puts you in the middle of the ocean? What then? If you move the line far enough out eventually you're going to reach a point where you will still exhaust all available land and you're going to wind up in the same predicament we're in now. And then how much of one's annual income do you think will be spent on that automobile that will now have to be driven at least 60 miles one way to work everyday? Fuel, repairs, etc.?

Plus there's still open land inside the UDB that is begging to be developed. The infrastructure is already there, and it's easier to provide transit there too. Let's develop that before we even consider moving the line. And let's not forget that certain lands down south are needed for flood control, water management, and Everglades restoration.

Let's look at Broward County for a second. A recent local radio program I was listening to said that Broward County will gain 1 million residents within the next 30 years, and a majority of that increase will come as a result of natural growth, not from new out-of-area residents. Where are all those people going to live? They didn't have a UDB so they're already built to the edge. Did not having a UDB keep housing prices down? No, it didn't. The only solution will be to build denser housing, and the 1950s "American Dream" will be less of an option in South Florida. Look at San Francisco. It's time to reevaluate what the "American Dream" means because it is simply impossible to build this type of housing for every single person. Human wants will never be satisfied, no matter how hard you try.

If anything, one could argue that the "American Dream" itself is the problem with soaring prices. After all, it creates a shortage in the housing stock, limiting growth and driving up prices by putting so few dwellings on an acre (by its very nature it makes housing even more scarce). If we built housing more compactly we could build quality housing that could be affordable to the middle class, and I'm not talking about the luxury condos being built downtown.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Save our homes" limiting the supply of housing. If what you mean is that people are afraid to sell their homes because the next house they buy will have dramatically higher property taxes compared to what they're used to paying because of the 3% cap, then yeah I can see that. I guess you could say it does limit houses that might otherwise come up for sale. But then if you were to repeal that amendment, the existing owners would probably be priced out their homes after their property taxes soar beyond what they're able to afford. If anything it has protected existing homeowners from losing their homesteads in this skyrocketing market. What a catch-22, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Well said! Props to you!

I think it is inevitable that South Florida will be a region of mid-rises, mix-use, and tower residences, to handle the ever-increasing population. I believe that there will never be a population decline in this region, as more and more people move in.

So we need to handle this better by building up, and filling up the existing land without ruining any new land.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold the line.

There's plenty of places left to develop including already developed neighborhoods. Imagine the transit oriented developments that could take place along the norther section of the metrorail line. The neighborhood just needs a little cleaning up and better police coverage.

Nimby's are doing more to keep housing values soaring than the UDB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

^That is a big misconception. There are plenty of suburbs, WHITE suburbs no less that are full of crime and baby-mama drama. Just beause one walks on a common sidewalk amid tall buildings doesn't mean that they're at risk lol. People get robbed in "nice little houses" too....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The recent evacuation of the Florida Keys caused by Hurricane Dennis has put the development of South Dade in the spotlight again. Monroe County is concerned about the impact that new development will have on the Keys evacuations. And of course, that land which was annexed into Florida City could be developed by Lennar if the UDB gets moved.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/12152629.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can never decide whether to post these in the UDB thread or the South Dade thread.

This is directly affecting the UDB though so here it is. Keep an eye on the other thread for more information.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...opic=8232&st=15

Lennar has officialy applied to move the UDB on their recently annexed Florida City land. The process could take up to a year before it's voted upon by the county commission. It's the 11th filling this year to move the UDB, so the pressure is on the commission. Let's all hope they have the fortitude to hold the line.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12165209.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

They say it's developer Armando Codina's fault -- this rash of applications for UDB moves, that is. The Beacon Lakes industrial park project he built on a former dumpsite required moving the UDB to do so. Florida City now has annexed territory that is outside the UDB and Lennar has an application request pending to move that line. The new just keeps getting better, and naturally commissioners aren't saying anything because those that voted in favor know that they wouldn't be able to stand up to the media scutiny after telling boldface lies. Ugghhh... makes my blood boil.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12371370.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Probably the best news I've heard in a while... The federal government has suspended the Florida City Commons project. This is on a property annexed into Florida City that could become developable if the UDB gets moved. This land is also within area that is undergoing a watershed study and may need to be acquired for use in Everglades restoration.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/12607560.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.