Impact Fees for Us ? I Think Not !

If Traffic stalls Fort Myers garage vote

By Ryan Hiraki
rhiraki@news-press.com
Originally posted on December 18, 2007

A failure to agree on the traffic impact of a new downtown Fort Myers parking garage again has prevented a decision on the project.

The $15 million, 834-car garage that would provide parking for the new Lee County Justice Center came up Monday night for the second time this month at a Fort Myers City Council meeting. And once again, after about a half-hour of debate, city and county officials decided to continue the issue until the lawyers and the transportation experts on both sides can agree on the impact the garage might have on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

“We don’t want to wordsmith this ordinance tonight,” Mayor Jim Humphrey said.

None of the council members opposed his suggestion, and the issue will come back for discussion and an expected vote Feb. 4 — a vote that will determine whether the county gets permits from the city to build the garage.

There is a waiting list for spaces at the City of Palms and Main Street garages, making parking an apparent need city officials are trying to address.

But this new garage is a Lee project, and city officials want the county to contribute $4.5 million toward improvements on MLK Boulevard, a major east-west corridor through Fort Myers that is clogged with traffic in the mornings and evenings.

New turn lanes on the two-lane road, city officials have said, could help relieve congestion.

The county’s $4.5 million share would account for 27 percent of the $16 million- plus city officials believe they need to improve MLK.

“There is no way we’re going to solve the problem on MLK,” city engineer Saeed Kazemi said. “So we need to ease it up. We need to work with each other to try to find a solution.”

The money used to improve a road so it can handle the traffic a new development brings is known as concurrency.

And county officials do not believe a parking garage has anything to do with concurrency.

“There’s magic to those words we put in ordinances,” County Attorney David Owen said. “A parking garage does not generate trips.”

That’s a Lee policy from which county officials apparently will not budge, even though a consultant they hired has warned that the garage would make traffic worse on MLK. Michael Spitz of McMahan Transportation Engineers and Planners has twice told city planners that the garage is a concurrency issue, according to city records of planning board meetings.

“That’s why the county shouldn’t be able to come in here and do what they want,” City Attorney Grant Alley said.

County officials can’t — at least they can’t build the garage without a city permit, and they would have to continue using the lots they lease on Liberty Street and a shuttle for jurors, visitors and employees of the justice center.

Jim Lavender, the county’s public works director, asked the council to consider issuing the permit, and then construction on the garage could start.

Originally posted on December 18, 2007construction on the garage started next January, Lavender later said, it would be ready by the end of the year, about the same time the justice center is scheduled to open.

City leaders just were not willing to take the risk that an agreement might not be in place to deal with potential impacts to MLK while the county gets permission to build.
Councilman Mike Flanders, who represents the downtown area, believes an agreement will be ready for a vote come February.

“I’m confident we’ll have language drafted close enough that we’ll adopt some version.”

Lavender remained skeptical.

“That’s hard to predict,” he said.

Money quote: “There’s magic to those words we put in ordinances,” County Attorney David Owen said.

It seems that this article illustrates that impact fees are good for the goose, but the county believes they are not good for the gander.!

County Growth Direction

I was reading this article in the News-Press about Commissioner Mann's comments at a recent BUPAC meeting as reported below...

Mann speaks out

Lee County Commissioner Frank Mann was the featured speaker at BUPAC (Businesspeople United for Political Action Committee) this week, where growth-related issues took up much of his address.

In about 20 years, Mann, said, experts predict Lee County will be about $2 billion behind on needed roads and highways, leading him to question why the county should move so fast to create gridlock.

“There’s 800,000 buildable lots vacant right now in Lee County, so when I said OK, no more zoning changes to allow more, I don’t think I hurt a single builder,” Mann said. “I think 800,000 new units are probably enough. People say they don’t want another Fort Lauderdale here, but that’s exactly where we’re headed. Why should we talk about granting additional density when we’re destroying our quality of life?”
With no new revenue sources in sight, and pressure growing from the state and from local residents to cut spending, Mann said the board has to look at every new service and cost.

Originally published in the News-Press by Betty Parker on 8/31/07

This gets back to an earlier post on staff "reading the tea leaves" wrong information, which . This statement is a prime example of why staff's tea leaf reading in regards to zoning can be used by staff to give the BOCCleads to them not being able to make an informed and intelligent answer for doing what is good for the county. I believe that commissioner Mann is right and what he is really saying is...we have a comprehensive plan that is in place, let's stick to it. There is no need to stray outside the confines of the plans that it currently enacted. Developers must stay within the line and policies as defined by our current land uses. At least, I think that is what he is saying. Although, he might be saying as an example, if you are in Urban Community and currently zoned AG-2, he believe that the zoning should not change, even though the code allows the land to chnge from AG-2. Stay tuned!

In the 1980's we had a commissioner who was hell bent on stopping growth. It led to a BOCC that was in turmoil at a huge cost to the residents of the county for the misdirections and roadblocks. In spite of our thick zoning books (Lee Development Code, LCD, Lee Plan, etc.) we still on the whole get poorly planned communities and mediocre houses and the growth will still happen mainly because our staff is not planning but "reading tea leaves". The only thing that can happen, is Lee County's name will be tarnished and it will take years to rebuild it when sounder minds prevail!

A Camel is a Horse Designed by a Committee

I found this guest opinion in last weeks Florida Weekly by former county commissioner Charlie Bigelow. I have always felt that Charlie holds one of the must intellectually honest positions on government and how it serves or does not serve the people it represents. He also speaks very candidly of the politics of local government.

A camel is a horse designed by a committee
BY CHARLIE BIGELOW

Could it be that Lee County government seems awkward because it is led by a committee? This is one of the questions the Lee County Charter review committee is considering.

Florida Weekly was the first to report tension in the working relationships within the Lee County government. Following that report, The News-Press has become obsessed with personality conflicts which, to their blindered eyes, define the present board and impairs its effectiveness.

Some on the charter review committee suspect there is more to explore than personality conflicts. They think the structure of county government itself should be examined. Unlike The News-Press' criticism, psychoanalysis of individual commissioners is unnecessary. Indeed, structural analysis accepts conflict as the norm to be embraced - or at least accepted - rather than avoided.

For the mere voter the underlying question is: Who is responsible for the way things go in county government? We always wonder about this when elections approach. Whether we seek to demand a new direction or express our faith in the status quo, we need to know who is responsible.

In the typical urban government format, a mayor is the designated political leader. In state government, it is the governor. On the federal level, the president is the one. In each instance, the elected executive is primarily responsible for setting the course. But, in the traditional county government, no one is the designated leader. Every one is responsible, so no one is.

Under these ambiguous circumstances, the meaning of our votes is often unclear. Not long ago, The News-Press' Betty Parker reported that some in the courthouse construed the last election to be a mandate for change. Others, she said, pointed to the reelection of Tammy Hall, a strong advocate for staying the present course, as proof to the contrary. In the presence of a muddled mandate, there is no direction from voters. Everyone is free to claim the voters' mandate supports their vision. And they do.

The approach that some on the review committee are suggesting, is to elect a county executive or "mayor." This is an emerging national trend and one of the alternative forms of charter government permitted as county governments adapt to urbanization. Two urban Florida counties have adopted different variations of this form in their pursuit of more accountable and responsive political leadership.

This movement toward the elected executive is not a step back in time. It does not replace professional management with politics. The professional manager continues as the administrator or chief of staff just as he does under the existing Lee Charter.

What the elected executive form does that Lee County's charter does not is create one elected head of government to work in concert with the legislative branch. One political executive mandated to be responsible for leading the effort to set the right course according to the voters' will.

Each of the two urban Florida counties adopting a variation of the elected executive head of government has adopted a different variation. Most of the differences involve the mayor's duties and powers . But both create a designated leader elected countywide, a legislative commission, some or all of whom are elected from single member districts and a professional manager of the staff.

Orange County, the home of Disney World, adopted the elected executive form several years ago when it had about the same population as Lee County does now. Current U.S. Senator Mel Martinez served as "county mayor" during some of the most explosive urban growth in Florida. Orange's legislative body is a seven member commission all elected from single member districts. The commissioners and the Mayor are limited to two terms. This is like the strong mayor system common in large cities.

Volusia County adopted the elected executive in a different format. The political head of government is the County Chair who is elected at large to a four-year term and is a part of the legislative commission. The commission consists of seven members, five of whom are elected from single member districts and two elected countywide (including the county chair.) The professional staff is managed by a professional manager selected by the commission. This is like the weak mayor form common in middle-sized cities. Cape Coral, Fort Myers and Bonita Springs each follow this format.

The tensions within the Lee County Commission, more ideological than personal, have focused attention on how Lee County government works or fails to work. Certainly structural reform is not a sure cure for what ails us. There is no perfect system of government or even one that the wrong combination of politicians cannot foul up. But consideration of the two systemic changes made by a pair of comparable Florida counties is inviting because they put the voters back in charge.

Charlie Bigelow is a longtime

Fort Myers attorney and former Lee

County Commissioner.

BOCC and Vision

I saw this transcript of Wendell Cox Testimony on Smart Growth and Public Transit, Before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and thought it should be looked at by the BOCC in terms of the Lee County vision they seem to be searching for in balancing our growth with the NIMBY urge to try..." to close the gate after I am in." You can find out more about Wendell Cox views at Demographia and The Public Purpose.

15 May 2002

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to testify today.

My name is Wendell Cox. I am an independent consultant headquartered to Belleville, Illinois, in the St. Louis area. I was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles Country Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom Bradley and was appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council by Speaker Gingrich. I have just returned from an assignment as a visiting professor at CNAM, a French national university in Paris and am a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The views expressed today are my own and not that of any organization.

I will share with you perspectives you may not have heard before --- about the problems with smart growth. Analysis of the data has induced other professionals and academics to reach similar judgements as well, judgements that challenge what is considered to be the conventional wisdom in urban planning. Let us recall, however, that urban renewal, which was so destructive and is so reviled today was strongly supported by the planning community just a few decades ago.

First of all, it is important to understand that sprawl is not an American phenomenon. It occurs wherever there is population growth and rising affluence. So, for example, the growing Paris area has sprawled significantly. Even European urban areas that have not grown have sprawled.

I do not favor sprawl. I favor allowing people to live and work where and how they like. And, there is no reason not to allow it. Even today, urbanization accounts for less than three percent of the nation's land area.

The "Smart Growth" movement seeks to stop or control urban sprawl. Proponents claim that it will reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution and reduce costs. It is important to understand that smart growth and containing sprawl require higher densities. Smart growth's goals simply are unattainable without much higher densities.

The claims of the smart growth movement simply do not hold up.

National and international data clearly indicates that traffic congestion rises with population density. Research commissioned by the United States Department of Transportation indicates that at current US urban densities, vehicle miles rise more than 80 percent when population density is doubled. Now, admittedly, that means that per capita driving declines marginally, but it means that there are more miles of driving per square mile.

More driving per square mile means that traffic slows down and that people must spend more time in their cars. Not surprisingly, journey to work travel times tend to be longer where population densities are higher --- whether in the United States or internationally.

And, as traffic volumes in a particular area increase, there is also an increase in stop and go driving. Slower speeds and stop and go driving mean greater production of air pollution. So, not surprisingly, air pollution production tends to be higher where densities are higher. And, it is well to consider the great progress that has been made in air pollution abatement in the United States. In the last 30 years, driving has increased substantially, while criteria air pollution production has decreased --- not just per capita --- but overall.

So, smart growth increases traffic congestion, travel times and air pollution.

Some months ago research was published showing that transportation costs are higher in more sprawling areas. This is to be expected. But what may be surprising is that overall household expenditures tend to be lower where densities are lower. The big factor in this equation is housing costs. Housing costs are less where densities are less, and they tend to be less to such a great degree that the transportation cost disadvantage is more than canceled.

But, the worst impact of all is social. Home ownership is lower where densities are higher. Thus, smart growth works to make home ownership more difficult for lower income households. Recent decades shows than minority home ownership, such as African-American and Hispanic, is rising faster than that of non-Hispanic whites. At the same time, minority home ownership levels still remain well below that of non-Hispanic whites.

By raising the price of housing, smart growth promotes social inequity. Smart growth rations land and development. It is a fundamental principle of economics that when valuable goods are rationed, their prices rise. When prices rise, it is the lower end of the income spectrum that is driven away from the market. The lower income spectrum has a disproportionate representation of minorities. As a result, smart growth reduces home ownership opportunities for lower income households, especially African-Americans and Hispanics. There is a raging debate between supporters and opponents of smart growth about the extent to which home ownership is reduced by smart growth. We often hear from smart growth supporters that the way to compensate for smart growths reduction of home ownership is to provide greater amounts of affordable housing. Such proposals are no more than empty platitudes in view of the fact that, by some reports, current public resources are sufficient to provide housing assistance to barely one third of eligible recipients.

Finally, there is the overall issue of wealth creation. Land is crucial in the creation of wealth. Where there are fewer restrictions, there is likely to be greater wealth creation. The relatively free market that has existed in land development is at least part of the reason that the United States remains by far the most affluent nation in the world larger than Fresno. And this is in per capita terms. We need to be very careful about placing unnecessarily restrictions on land because it is likely to mean less wealth creation in the future.

And now to transit. This is not about being pro-transit or anti-transit or pro-highway or anti-highway. But the expectations of what can be accomplished with transit are simply unrealistic. First of all, it is important to recognize that transit demand is very concentrated. One-half of the national ridership is in New York and Chicago and 76 percent is in seven metropolitan areas.

Make no mistake about it. Transit works where the circumstances are favorable. And so, 75 percent of commuters to Manhattan ride transit. Those who don't might be considered crazy. More than 60 percent of commuters use transit to work in the Chicago Loop. Among people who have a choice --- people who have automobiles --- transit commuting is largely limited to downtown. And, downtown areas are a small and declining portion of metropolitan employment, averaging only 10 percent of the market. Outside downtown corridors, there is little that transit can do to reduce traffic congestion. This, by the way is also true to some extent in European urban areas.

The key to getting people out of their cars is to provide automobile competitive service --- service that is competitive in travel time. But there is little auto-competitive service in the United States and little more planned to areas other than downtowns.

The Union of International Public Transport is hardly the type of organization that would be expected to make critical comments about public transit. But this organization, the international equivalent of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) put it this way:

In the United States, with the exception of New York, public transport is unable to compete with the automobile: its speed is half as fast, which means that door-to-door travel times, incorporating terminal distance times, waiting and transfer times, are 3 to 4 times longer on public transport.

Actually, this is something of an overstatement. Transit plays an important role in providing auto-competitive service to a number of the nation's downtowns, not just Manhattan.

This brings me to three conclusions:

• No problem has been identified of sufficient magnitude to justify coercive smart growth strategies

• There is little potential for reducing traffic congestion or increasing transportation choice for all but a few through transit. There are no material successes, US or international.

• Smart growth strategies tend to intensify the very problems they are purported to solve. New federal mandates are inadvisable.

A year ago, a number of us gathered in the mountains of Montana and issued a statement of market principles of development --- the Lone Mountain Compact. It stated, among other things:

… absent a material threat to other individuals or the community, people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.

Forty years ago, Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson expressed similar sentiments:

Our people have had more happiness and prosperity, over a wider area, for a longer time than men have ever had since they began to live in ordered societies 4,000 years ago. Since we have come so far, who shall be rash enough to set limits on our future progress? Who shall say that since we have gone so far, we can go no farther? Who shall say that the American Dream is ended?

We are a great nation. We have accomplished much. We should face the future in confidence, not fear.

Did You Know ?

Last night I was thinking about the BOCC and the new slow !!! growth tilt that seems to have grabbed hold of them. If you look at the above map it illustrates the vast amounts of untouched land that still exist in this country.(To go to the original interactive link please go here. My humble thanks to Time Magazine.)

Did you know ?

* One researcher has calculated that the entire population of the United States at a low suburban density of one family per acre would require an area less than the state of Oregon.

* Only about 5% of of the United States land mass is currently urbanized. 20% is devoted to farming and more than 30% is covered by forest. The balance (almost) half is wilderness.

* From the 1990 census... the densities of the American suburbs and cities is not vastly different. The average gross population density of the suburbs was 2,149 persons per square mile and the cities was 2,813. The reason is that about three quarters of the suburbs are one or two stories. However in the cities only 5% of the city dwellings nationwide are seven stories or more, over half of the city dwellings are one or two stories.

So the question arises for the BOCC what is the real density of the county and are their reactions based on perceived or real density numbers. Or is it a case of the NIMBY's.

Lee County Growth

In an earlier post, I mentioned the "Mann Manifesto" and the BOCC's reexamination of the county and growth. Back in April, the Creative Class Group with Richard Florida published this post about a new study of "urban scaling" by researchers affiliated with the Santa Fe Institute it promises to change the way we think about cities. The study is here. It seems to me, that what really need to happen is the BOCC needs to have a a well thoughtout clear vision of our area and a positive view of growth. If you look at the River District plan that DPZ created through charrettes with all interested parties, it is really a good matrix and roadmap of how the district should develop. It is not a plan that is rigid and stagnate, adopted and left to be administered and manipulated by the staff to fit the prevailing political winds.

Is This A Tax?

I saw this yesterday in the News-Press and it seems to buttress the thought that politicians and staff truly believe that the money you earn is really theirs and you are just temporarily holding it until they need it!

Lee considers raising fees on extra housing units
By Ryan Lengerich
rlengerich@news-press.com
Originally posted on August 09, 2007

Fees to build housing units beyond what Lee County allows could more than triple if commissioners approve the increase at a meeting Tuesday.

If developers want to build more units than the county’s plan allows, they have two options. The developers can make the extra units affordable housing or they can pay the county a fee for each unit which is used to promote affordable housing.

Commissioners are scheduled to hold a public hearing and possibly decide whether to increase the fee from $11,429 per extra unit to $40,000.

Commissioners debated whether to overhaul the program this morning during the monthly management and planning meeting. They directed staff to keep the fee increase hearing on for Tuesday so if passed, it would take effect while they continue reconsider the program.

Paul O’Connor, the county’s director of planning, said the current fee is too low in today’s market.

Now I ask you, is this a tax? If you say no, just wait until you go to buy your next new home! Staff's idea is ...let's hide it, under the guise of the developers need to pay more for the privledge of using their land. The reader will notice, that the staff never acknowledges where the developers are getting the money to pay for this new tripling of a fee. I am positive it is the residents. If a resident wants to live in the targeted development, the purchaser (not the developer) pays an additional $40,000 for the house. Let's get this straight, staff wants the BOCC to push the fees to loan sharks limits, but if the developer does not build market price housing and builds affordable housing, the government, will not charge them these inflated fees. However, staff is not recommending changing the way the zoning process creates huge time delays, demands additional extractions (money), forces the applicant to use high priced consultants and mandates that the developer jump through these hoops three times during the rezoning process. Please remember, that because zoning is a public process there is built in public notification timing that just further slows the process down. Luckily, the BOCC will have hearings where hopefully the pubic will tell the board no way.

I was always told, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck! A tax is a tax!

Zoning by Tea Leaves !

I have been told by a very reliable source that the higher ups in Lee County's Department of Community Development have put out the word to the planning and zoning staff to put the brakes on all development ! This is very interesting, since I have also been told by two different members of staff that they are trying to review projects by reading the "Tea Leaves" (while from their offices they point in the direction of the administration building) on which way the BOCC is leaning and what they want and not if a project correctly meets the letter of the LDC (Lee Development Code) and the Lee Plan. Of course, those same people have over the years written and amended the codes, so there is always within the code some fine print saying that they have the discretion to deny a project for no reason. (... is not consistent with the intent and provisions of Goal 2 of the Lee Plan.) These actions by staff only act as a hidden tax on the residents. Someone has to pay for the constant delays, extractions and addition payments to all the consultants that are needed to get through the arcane process. The thought being...it's ok, just pass the extra costs on to the big bad developer. Staff has never understood where the money comes from... (hint it is not the applicant in the end). But staff will never think they are the cause of any road blocks. It is always the applicant's fault. But who knows what hidden agenda staff may have in regards to the project being reviewed. Also, no one knows how the different departments work in concert to throw up continuing road blocks for the applicant's team to try and work around. Remember they are just reading the "Tea Leaves"!

This is sort of funny. I could have sworn that this is what we elected our five (5) county commissioners for, to make informed decisions, with the staff giving unfiltered information to the Board, so they can try and make good and fair decisions for the county's best interests when they are voting. They should not be voting on what the staff thinks the BOCC wants to hear! Now you have to wonder, who's glasses are the Board looking through and who is trying to manipulate the information? Remember, "We are just reading the Tea Leaves".