Awkward Utopia

Some may argue that the right of an individual to develop his own property as he sees fit is constricted enough, given current zoning codes and regulations. While there is certainly room for disagreement on the issue, there is a new constitutional amendment in the pipeline that promises to choke our quasi-free market real estate sector into paralysis. The adorably named “Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment” would require voters in each municipality to approve any changes granted by city or county officials to their comprehensive plans. In Florida, municipalities are required to have comprehensive plans detailing future land use patterns and infrastructure development. Unfortunately, in many cases the result is institutionalized low-density sprawl and separated land uses. Developers seeking to change the usage or increase the density of construction on their land will often seek amendments to the respective municipality’s comprehensive plan. Additionally, for new public facilities (such as schools, major roads, and hospitals) to be built, amendments to local plans are often required. In 2003 alone, it was reported that over 12,000 amendments to comprehensive plans were approved in the state. Essentially, these amendments serve as a way for the private and public sectors to provide at least some level of responsiveness to the changing market and result in a bit more efficiency in development.

Proponents of “Hometown Democracy” complain that evil developers are ruining the quality of life in the state and damaging the environment by overbuilding. They contend that the actions of developers are contrary to the wishes of the people. I might suggest that if that were true there would be plenty of poor developers, which we know not to be the case. On their website, the group proudly proclaims that they want to “make the current land use system more accountable by giving the power over certain land use changes (comprehensive plan amendments) to the voters,” essentially giving over more public control of private property. This insane amendment has several serious problems. First of all, people in Florida have been shown to simultaneously be against low density sprawl and high density urban development. This basically means that their opinions are invalid on this matter. The flurry of high rise construction and urban infill projects in the major cities of the state proves that many Floridians are, in fact, in favor of high density development. Meanwhile, suburban sprawl continues on the peripheries of nearly every city in Florida proving that people are still willing to live in the suburbs. Giving people the authority to vote down amendments to their local comprehensive plans would likely result in uneven and haphazard development. Moreover, it would put developers and the real estate industry (a major sector of this state’s economy) at the mercy of uninformed voters and pressure groups from both sides, whom, I might add, would only vote on amendments to their comprehensive plans at regularly scheduled elections, which are often more than one year apart. This would likely bring development (commercial, residential and otherwise) to a standstill in this booming state. The supply of available residential and commercial property would shrink causing prices to skyrocket.

It would suddenly become impossible to do business in Florida, given the expected price of office space and the elevated housing prices. Instead of seeing rapid population and economic growth, Florida would likely experience stagnation. Additionally, one should consider the types of people who are pushing this constitutional amendment through. From what I can gather, they appear to be unapologetic environmentalists. How in the world could sprawl (the status quo) be preferable to high density development with respect to its impact on the environment? Are we supposed to believe that three free-standing single-family homes per acre is an environmentally friendly or even a profitable land use pattern? If a developer can house the equivalent of six or seven single-family homes (typically about 2.5 residents each) on a one acre piece of land, in perhaps a two or three story building, that is a far cry from Manhattan. Nonetheless, the developer’s bottom line is improved, the municipal tax base is increased, less land is eaten up to build parking lots or oversized front yards, and there is an increased amount of space to house the nearly 1,000 residents which move into the state daily.