This is what I think

I have a hard time giving a "nod" to developers who are directly responsible for the "House that Jack Built" school dilemma.

You know how it goes.. (to the tune of The House that Jack Built)

These are the guys that lobbied the commission to deny the impact fees on building the homes that house the kids that crowd the schools which can't be built fast enough because of the towns that they built.

Shame on the Hillsborough County Commission for yielding to pressure from the building community for so long when the problem of school overcrowding has been festering. Unlike a lot of new developments,  classroom congestion did not just spring up over night. Even if the commission approves increased impact fees today, it will take a long time for the Hillsborough County School Board to play catch up.

And speaking of the school board, their head-in-the-sand attitude is another major contributing factor to the problem. Makes you wonder where some of their allegiances lie and who they were more concerned about.

What do you think of when you hear these names?

 

Ruskin.

 

Zellwood.

 

Plant City.

 

Winter Haven.

 

Ruskin is known for its luscious tomatoes, Plant City for succulent berries, Zellwood for its sweet corn and Winter Haven for its large variety of citrus.

 

All of these places are starting to feel the pains of encroaching development.

 

One of our own claims to fame is Dade City's annual Kumquat Festival. Two days ago our commission voted to change zoning on two parcels of land totaling approximately 40 acres in the heart of St. Joe's Kumquat growing center from AC - one unit per 10 acres to AR-1 - one unit per acre.

 

Katy's Corner, home to all things Kumquat, moved from it's longtime home on St. Joe Road to a room in the Crescent Enrichment Center in 2004.

 

Pretty soon, the only Kumquats will be on signs for subdivisions with names like "Kumquat Acres."

 

Will we still be able to have a Kumquat festival when we pave over all of the groves?  

 

Sprawl from Tampa is starting to creep ever closer to Plant City and in today's paper there is a story about two women who are fighting a development that will plop 360 homes and town homes in the middle of a wildlife corridor near the Little Manatee River in rural Ruskin.

 

A Google search turned up this ort of advertising for an investment company's 178-acres in Zellwood " The property consists of 3 separate residential land parcels. These parcels offer the astute developer tremendous potential, including residential development. The three sites offer a builder, manufacturer; or dealer the perfect location to exclusively market and sell their homes. These 3 parcels have been platted 743 manufactured home site."

 

So much for Zellwood.

 

A University of Florida study estimates Polk County grew 19.3% from 405,382 residents, to 483,924 a between 1990 and 2000 and that isn’t slowing down.

 

Why are we willing to trade the ways of life and geography that make us unique for subdivisions that turn us into indistinguishable masses?

 

Personally, I think we’re losing it.

If you want to see what we've got before it's gone try visiting:

http://www.kumquatfestival.com/

http://goflorida.about.com/od/eventsfestivals/a/festival_food.htm

 

http://www.americanprofile.com/issues/20010729/20010729se_1122.asp

 

http://www.zellwoodcornfestival.com/

 

http://ruskinfoundation.org/festival.html

 

http://www.citrusfestival.com/

There may be some people who would like to portray members of Northeast Pasco Concerned Citizens as a bunch of little old ladies smelling of dried flowers who have nothing better to do than try and deny some poor wretched farmer their long-anticipated due.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Many of them have children or jobs or other issues that take up their time but they have continued to attend citizens advisory committee meetings, town hall meetings, EAR workshops and public hearings because they think it  is important, important for  their children and important for the future of Pasco County.

 

I know because I am a member of this group.

 

Unlike some of the other faces we see at this meeting, we are not paid to be here.

 

I ask you, do you, as commissioners, want to be remembered as a group who buckled to rhetoric from lawyers and developers and allowed the future of this county to be delivered to the highest bidder? Or, would you rather be known as those who had the foresight to just say no – enough is enough?

 

I resent being depicted as a person who is fighting a farmer for his property rights. I believe in farming and that the ability of our country to sustain itself agriculturally is critically important.

 

What I do have a problem with is someone who wears the cloth of a farmer on the outside while shaking the hand of a developer under the table and asking my county to protect their rights while they are selling ours down the river.

 

We all have property rights. None of the members of our group and no resident of unincorporated Pasco County can do more on their property than its current land use and zoning allow and neither can an agricultural landowner. The revisions to the comprehensive plan won’t change that.

 

Higher density is not a given – not for them, not for anyone else.

 

We are fighting for a quality of life for us, for our children and for Pasco County’s future generations.

 

The 26 agricultural landowners may own more acres, but fortunately, our votes are not weighed by how much property we own.

 

How many landowners are there in northeast Pasco County? Should 26 people determine what kind of quality of life the rest of us would have? Do their interests carry more weight than the majority?

 

In a feudalistic society, those who own the land, write the rules.

 

Fortunately for us, we are living in a democracy.

 

 The changes to our comprehensive plan will just help ensure that the inevitable growth here will not result in the kind of problems other areas of the county are experiencing as a result of theirs - like overcrowded schools and grid locked intersections.

 

We aren’t against change – just change without guidance – our comprehensive plan should have the components that will give us that guidance because not all growth is progress.

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Commissioners

I am writing in reaction to a recent flyer and a phone survey  which attempts to skew results in support of the position of the group called the “East Pasco Agricultural Landowners” represented by Clark Hobby.

 

Where have all of the "East Pasco Agricultural Landowners" been the last few years when our Citizens Advisory Committee members were making their recommendation to the EAR? This has not been a hasty process. They say they are concerned about protecting all of our property rights... but the only thing they are really concerned about is their ability to easily change our comprehensive plan so that they can get the highest density possible and make the most money when they sell.  We all know it isn't a matter of if they will sell their land for development, it's when.

 

When they do they will no longer be "East Pasco Agricultural Landowners" because they will have sold out and moved on and left the rest of us to live in yet another Wesley Chapel.

 

Contrary to the snide implication on the flyer, it wasn’t out-of-town consultants who asked for these safeguards to the comprehensive plan, it was tax-paying citizens.

 

The Department of Community Affairs ALREADY reviews amendments to the comprehensive plan. The East Pasco Rural Area Protection Plan will not alter that. The Department of Community Affairs is obligated to ensure that proposed changes adhere to our own adopted standards and mandated state requirements.

 

What is onerous about having to uphold our own adopted land use rules?

 

Who are the "East Pasco Agricultural Landowners”?  What are they so afraid of that they feel the need to stir up controversy now at the eleventh hour under the cover of a paid representative?  Can’t they speak for themselves?

 

I personally am offended by the tone of the recent Tombstone mailing. It is a deliberate manipulation of the connotation of a farmer as the ultimate American (with liberty and justice for all - salt of the earth, etc. - a comparison I happen to agree with). The flyers were sent out in red, white and blue. The implication, however misleading, is that if you don't agree with the premise that density control is a threat to your property rights, taking away your gun is next and you are un-American.

 

I resent the innuendo that because I am not in favor of high-density development, I am un-American. What is more American than active participation in one’s government?  That these changes to our comprehensive plan are being considered right now is a result of that democratic process. Citizens in Northeast Pasco made their concerns known to the Citizens Advisory Committee and at countless other meetings and workshops. The Northeast Pasco Rural Area Protection Plan is a direct result of the citizen input from those forums.

 

One would think that a group of people who call themselves "Agricultural Landowners" would be supportive of a plan that would help keep the area rural and safeguard the interests of farmers.

 

There isn't one thing that I could do on my seven acres, or you could do on your property that would come close to the kind of impact that a high-density development on 30, 50, 100, 300 or more acres will have on each and every one of us.

 

If I build an ugly house on my property it may impact my neighbors. If "East Pasco Agricultural Landowners" get their way and derail the rural area protection plan, the thousands of houses they will build on their land will jam our roads, crowd our schools and change the character of this area forever.

 

These regulations mainly affect holders of parcels of land larger than 100 acres.

 

I urge you to please consider the rights of the majority of East Pasco County residents who will benefit from the changes to the comprehensive plan and adopt the proposal to protect this area’s rural nature. It is clear that most of us do not want to live in a high-density, urban environment.

 

 

 

There isn't one thing that I could do on my seven acres, or you could do on your property that would come close to the kind of impact that a high-density development on 30 , 50, 100, 300 or more acres will have on each and every one of us.

If I build an ugly house on my property it may impact my neighbors. If "East Pasco Agricultural Landowners" get their way and derail the rural area protection plan, the thousands of houses they will build on their land will jam our roads, crowd our schools and change the character of this area forever.

They say they are concerned about protecting their property rights... but the only thing they are really concerned about is their ability to easily change our comprehensive plan so that they can get the highest density possible so they can make the most money when they sell. It isn't a matter of if they will sell their land for development, it's when.

When they do.. they will no longer be "East Pasco Agricultural Landowners" because they will have sold out and moved on and left the rest of us to live in yet another Wesley Chapel.

Where have all of the "East Pasco Agricultural Landowners" been the last few years when the Citizens Advisory Committee were making their recommendation to the EAR? This has not been a hasty process.

It wasn't the consultants who asked for these safeguards to the comprehensive plan, it was tax-paying citizens.

ALL changes to the comprehesive plan are ALREADY reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs. The proposed rural area plan will not change that.

Who are these "East Pasco Agricultural Landowners" and what are they  so afraid of that they feel the need to stir up controversy now at the eleventh hour?

One would think that a  group of people who call themselves "Agricultural Landowners" would be supportive of a plan that would help keep the area rural and safeguard the interests of farmers.

 

To see copies of the flyer click here and here.

One of the reasons I did not respond to the editorial in Sunday’s Tribune urging the county to delay decisions on the Northeast Pasco Rural Area Plan is because it struck me very personally. I didn’t want to react emotionally to something that everyone says should be logically considered. Then I got to thinking. What’s wrong with taking something personally?

The things we hold most dear, the things that mean the most to us are personal.

To me, protecting the uniqueness of the area and guiding growth in Northeast Pasco County IS personal. What is more personal than where you choose to call home?

 

We moved here from Pinellas County in October of 2000. Part of the reason for that was because I took the changes that were happening in that county personally.  Driving past Boot Ranch made me cry. I rode my first horse for the first time from the boot on Tampa Road to the barn. Seeing the boot that was a symbol of that ranch anchoring apartments, town homes and a mall featuring a Target store was painful to me.

From Clearwater to Tarpon Springs, from Holiday to Hudson I’ve seen what was quaint and unique become urban and ubiquitous.

One of the things that frustrate me the most is the collective acceptance that unnamed masses of people who do not even live here have the same rights that we current residents do.

Maybe I’m the only one who sees the absurdity in that.

An example is the county commission considering the rights of senior citizens in a gated community and their aversion to road connectivity through their neighborhood.

What’s the problem with that?

Well for one thing, the community is hypothetical… it hasn’t been built yet. How can you take something away from someone who only exists in a developer’s imagination?

The quality of life we stand to lose to uncontrolled growth is real.

In their presentation to County Commissioners, the consultants who generated the rural area protection element to be incorporated into our comprehensive plan asked the question: “Is it just a matter of Density?

Essentially, yes, it is a matter of density.

A hundred thousand new residents, whether you can see their homes from the street or not, are still going to impact our roads, schools and way of life.

Because we all know that it isn’t going to stop with a couple of conservation subdivisions.

Once those people move in they won’t want to drive to Wesley Chapel for a Starbucks and a Dunkin Donuts and a Sonic and a Publix  and a Beef O’Brady’s, etc., etc., etc.

Before you know it those of us who moved here to get away from that kind of commercial graffiti would be surrounded by it.

I like to see the stars at night not sodium lighting. I like to hear the lowing of cows in the pasture up the street not the cacophony of traffic. I like to see each season’s profusion of wildflowers along the roadside, not soda cans and fast food wrappers.

If our county does not provide us with some means to guide the inevitable growth of this area now it will be too late.

In a speech my daughter is writing she describes the beginning  of a series of events as a pebble that starts the avalanche.

Well my friends, Wesley Chapel is the pebble and we are in the path of the avalanche.

Without the protection of the components of the Rural Area Protection Plan we are going to get snowed.

 

 

 

 

 

Did the county spend a million dollars for a Northeast Pasco Rural Area Plan so that they would have a blueprint for future growth and the supporting codes and ordinances to facilitate the concept into becoming a reality? Or did they spend a million or so of our taxpayer’s dollars for a spiffy brochure and some handouts?

If the latter is the case then what we have for our money is a bunch of documents too slick for toilet paper.

 

 

Why was Northeast Pasco an area of study? Why does the county need to spend the resources in time and money for the concepts of rural preservation to become a reality?

 

 

BECAUSE WE’RE A BLANK SLATE.

 

 

You don’t get an A for effort... you get good marks for the end result.

 

 

If the county back peddles now we will know a couple of things.

 

1)     They don’t care about the several years the CAC and some of their constituents have invested in working to make a rural area protection plan a reality.

2)     They don’t care that the county has spent a whole lot of money both in county staff hours and consultant fees to come up with a workable plan.          

3)     The only part of growth management the commissioners understand is the growth part. Management costs you and the developers don’t like it.

 

 

I hope I’m wrong, but it seems to me as if the county is trying to find a way to back out of this plan instead of trying to find a way to make it work

 

If it was worth the cost of a group of consultants to devise a plan to begin with, it should be worth the extra money to either increase their staff to get the codes written or pay someone else to write them.

 In the Tampa Tribune today Julia Ferrante's story Changes Pondered for Growth Plan quotes Steve Simon:

 - Commission Chairman Steve Simon cautioned fellow board members about giving priority to agricultural uses over residential ones.

"One of our goals is economic viability of agriculture, but that may not be within our ability to do," he said. "This is a little bit of foolishness in my mind. If we put it in precedence, the expectation may be to increase subsidies." -

Hogwash.

Where, oh where does it say that in the EAR?

There are two policy references to agriculture in the EAR Future Land Use Chapter 2 (GOPs) Revised/Recieved 11/8/05:

OBJECTIVE FLU 2.2. MAINTAIN THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND USES

Encourage the preservation of agriculture as a viable long- and short- term use of land and an asset of Pasco County's economy.

Policy FLU 2.2.1 Agricultural Primacy

[Old Objective 1.5]

Pasco County shall encourage continuation of agricultural operations in the Northeast Pasco County Rural Area.

 Agricultural uses on lands that have an agricultural exemption from the Pasco County Property Appraiser will be considered to have "primacy" in the area.

Primacy means that when conflicts arise between such agricultural lands and other non-agricultural uses that are permitted in agricultural areas of the County, all other factors being equal, the conflict will be resolved in favor of the agricultural interests.

(http://www.pascocountyfl.net/devser/gm/misc/flu/1105/FLUC2%20110805.pdf)

 

 

 

 

Those two policies are not saying that at all.  There is not even the whiff of a hint of mention of the word "subsidy." All they do is declare the intent to give legitimate farmers a fair shake in an atmosphere that is doing everything but stand on its head and spit nickels to attract developers..

If the county was going to commit to subsidies then there would have been policies or codes proposed to suport it as is the case with the codes that will have to be written to facilitate conservation subdivisions.

 

 

 

 

Instead of subjecting everybody to my rants when all they really want to do is read the news, I decided to create this blog.

 

 11/30: I'm on a roll I guess. I wish I had been at the meeting because, from reading the notes, there is an issue we need to address - and that is perpetuating the myth that large landowners are being deprived of their rights.

Every time we utter those words we are dignifying a concept that is a fallacy and giving it credibility.

 Just because they say it, doesn't make it so.

Think about it. Asking the county to follow the guidelines of our comprehensive plan is not taking away their rights. What Hobby and his 25 landowners are actually saying is that if the county will not let them do more with their land than the land use and zoning that exists on it would allow now, they are some how being deprived of greater profits when they sell.

 The law does not guarantee landowners high profits. The Burt Harris Act guarantees reasonable use of land and protects landowners from government restricting a use that is allowed under the Comprehensive Plan and the land's CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING and for them to be compensated if they had already spent money on site plans or whatever for a project that fell under a currently permitted use. Not some more intense use they had hoped to get but were denied.

Changes to the comprehensive plan are supposed to be made to make a piece of property MORE COMPATIBLE with surrounding properties not to introduce a new use that is incompatible. To hear Hobby talk it would seem that all of these landowners would be saddled with property that that could not be built on and that is just not so.

11/29: Warning: I'm about to go on a rant.

I have been thinking about a couple of the stories that ran a day or so ago, one by Jim Tunstall - "Farmers Faithful to Their Fields" - and the other by Jo Ann Johnston - "120 Homes Proposed for San Antonio."

 My sermon for the week: When you stop and cut out the chaff, what really matters? From a societal perspective.

 In Jim's story about a few local farmers resisting the temptation to sell out for development, Pasco's Allen Altman says "The land is all some of these families ever had. But then they ... get to the end of the year and find they didn't make a profit, or if they did they find they've been working for less than minimum wage."

What's wrong with that?

It wasn't that long ago that people didn't reckon their worth solely on the balance of their bank accounts or kind of car (or how many of them) they had. Your land made you rich. Your land could feed you and what was important was that you had a roof over your head, clothes on your back and family and neighbors and community.

Now it's all about the bottom dollar. Most of the things we value so much today have a timed obsolescence. This year's latest gadget is next year's yard sale item.

This scares me for several reasons. The first reason is that piece by piece, our country is selling out the one thing that made us a world leader: our self-sufficiency. You can't feed a nation with patio tomatoes.

If you don't think that's important, just take a look at some of the countries that can't feed themselves.

 We're subdividing our farms and outsourcing our jobs and becoming a country of big-box suburban consumers.

Big developers don't scare me as much as these people. Scratch the surface of these chicken/"hay" farmers and there is a developer waiting to ooze out.

When they want to cram more houses on a few acres in San Antonio they wear the developer hat. When they cut down trees in violation of the tree ordinance to "grow hay" they are farmers and "aw, shucks, it was an accident."

When we mow down all the trees and cover the nation in asphalt and three bedroom, 2.5 bathroom cracker boxes, there will be one thing we aren't going to be able to manufacture or simulate and that is the ground beneath our feet.

 Phew, glad I got that off my chest.