Polk Law Blog

The text of the amendment as well as the summary text that will appear on the ballot are available from the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections, so you can read it yourself.

Most of what you see on Amendment 4 is either incomprehensible, obviously biased, or both. This post will explain Amendment 4 in detail from a neutral standpoint. In Part II, we’ll look at the hype from the proponents and opponents of the amendment and do some fact-checking to see if and how the truth is being bent to accomplish their purposes.

What is a comprehensive land use plan?

It’s going to get very annoying to keep typing “comprehensive land use plan,” so I’m going to refer to it as a “comp plan” for short. If you are talking to a land use attorney or land development guru and call it a “comp plan,” you will sound cooler than if you say “comprehensive land use plan.” Trust me on this.

Basically, a comp plan is a detailed document that governs how a city or county manages its growth. Each city and county in Florida is required to adopt one. All land use decisions (and a lot of other decisions) are supposed to comply with the comp plan. It is not an ordinance and it is not a zoning map. It is a detailed plan required by statute that ordinances and zoning maps must comply with. They are quite lengthy (e.g., Polk County’s is around 500 pages) and mostly text as opposed to maps or tables.

If you would like more background, the Florida Department of Community Affairs has a detailed historical summary of comp plans. The City of Lakeland has a nice, succinct FAQ about comp plans on its website.

If you would like to thumb through one, you can download comp plans for Polk County, Lakeland, Winter Haven, Haines City, and Bartow online. Other local governments may also post theirs online. Look on their websites for the planning division.

Any time a city or county wants to change a zoning, extend its water service, develop or get rid of a bus system, etc…, it has to comply with its own comp plan, which establishes the ground rules for the more detailed zoning and land development rules. The comp plan has a lot of broad-stroke requirements that begin with phrases like “ The City shall continue to implement land development regulations requiring…” It is quite detailed, but it leaves quite a lot of lower-level details to the actual ordinances and policies of the local government authority.

I very strongly encourage you to thumb through one via the links above.

Can you give me an example of how land use is regulated by comp plans?

Sure. Let’s say you own a hypothetical property on 98 in Bartow on the North side of town.

The zoning map indicates that your property is zoned “C-2 Community Commercial.” In Bartow, C-2 Community Commercial is the second of four different commercial zoning types (C-1 Downtown, C-2 Community, C-3 Highway, and C-4 Neighborhood). Each one is a little different. The zoning map doesn’t tell you what this means, it just tells you what zoning is assigned to the property.

The land development code defines “C-2 Community Commercial.” It has this to say about this zoning:



The land use code has a lot more to say about what you can and can’t do, such as defining setbacks and signage rules. But this is the section that deals with this particular zoning and only this particular zoning.

But what about the comp plan? The comp plan looks at this from a higher level. It doesn’t get into C1, C2, C3, and C4 – it just talks about a “Commercial” land use. It contains a different map with fewer, more broadly classified areas. The comp plan defines Commercial land use like this:

e) The primary function of the Commercial land use classification is to meet the City’s need for retail goods and services, and shall promote efficient use of infrastructure.  The City shall direct future commercial development to areas, which are well integrated into the transportation  network,  and  surrounding  land  uses.  The  floor  area  ratio  for  commercial structures in this classification shall not exceed 0.5.  Residential uses are permissible within this  classification,  provided  that  they  are  compatible  and appropriately  integrated  with surrounding land uses.  Residential development may be permitted at densities of up to 12 units per acre, depending on the zoning category of the particular site, the development suitability of the site, and the availability of public facilities and services.

So the land development code is detailed, while the comp plan is broader. The land development code sets the rules for development. The comp plan provides boundaries, policies, and goals for the land development code to adhere to.

How are comp plans amended?

The laws governing amendment of comp plans are set forth in Fla. Stat. sec. 163.3184, 163.3187, 163.3189. The comp plan can only be amended twice per year, and amendments that affect more than 10 acres or involve densities of more than 10 units per acre must be submitted to the state for review and approval. The process involves publication of proposed amendments and multiple public hearings. The City of Palm bay has a nifty flowchart that describes the process they use – the process in other jurisdictions is basically the same. Osceola County has a nice description of the process over on its website.

Affected citizens have the right to challenge comp plan amendments within certain time frames described in the statute.

So what does Amendment 4 do?

It adds one more step in the process of amending a comp plan. Before any comp plan amendment may be adopted by the local government, it has to be approved by the voters, too. As in you and me. On an election ballot.

What’s all the fuss about?

Amendment 4 is promoted by a group called Florida Hometown Democracy. It’s supporters are an amalgam of individuals, environmental organizations, and groups that are critical of current growth practices in Florida. They feel that local governments have treated the comp plan process too loosely by giving in to the whims of developers at the cost of good long-term planning.

Amendment 4′s primary opponents are business groups and developers who have formed Floridians for Smarter Growth to lead the charge against the Amendment. They call it “Vote on Everything.” They feel that creating such onerous requirements for comp plan amendments will make the process too slow and costly and have the effect of deterring smart growth to the detriment of our economy. They also believe it will make election ballots overly complicated.

Here are summaries of the arguments from both groups, lifted straight from their websites. First, Florida Hometown Democracy:

Our local governments spend millions of dollars creating comprehensive plans in order to promote sensible development. These plans are also intended to ensure that growth does not destroy Floridians’ quality of life and our environment, and that infrastructure and government-provided services are not overwhelmed by unplanned, run-away construction. Yet, as recent history demonstrates, too many local governments do not respect our plans. It is just too easy for wealthy developers to obtain comprehensive plan changes. All they have to do is persuade the majority of a city or county commission to grant their requested change. Routine granting of plan changes destroys the value and integrity of comprehensive plans. The result is unplanned growth. Floridians are now living with the consequences of unplanned, runaway growth: overcrowded roads, depleted water supply, rising taxes, and reduced quality of life…

Because comprehensive plan changes often determine the destiny of a community for generations to come, it is vital that such changes are made — as they are supposed to be made — in the public interest. Amendment 4 will ensure that changes to comprehensive plans truly reflect the consensus of the community. Because voters must live with the consequences of plan changes, they should have the final say over whether to approve or reject proposed changes. (source)

And here’s the opposition, Floridians for Smarter Growth:

THE DISRUPTION of local communities and the daily lives of Floridians will be extraordinary. Cities and counties will be required to hold elections for each proposed comprehensive plan change – not just major projects, but even minor technical details. In the last four years alone, this amendment would have required an average of over 10,599 additional local votes per year in Florida. In fact, had Amendment 4 been in place in 2006, the voters of Carrabelle – a small Franklin County town – would have seen 617 separate questions in a single ballot.

THE DISORDER will further disenfranchise Florida’s already-fatigued electorate. Voters will be deluged with highly technical background materials prepared by the local government planning staff. The legalese of proposed comprehensive plan changes, often puzzling for expert engineers and attorneys, will further dampen voter turnout. Lines at voting booths will grow as Floridians attempt the virtual impossibility of voting on hundreds of separate and often confusing ballot questions.

THE COST will be astronomical. Every city and county in Florida will be burdened with the time and cost of holding additional elections to vote on proposed changes to comprehensive land use plans. Each of these elections will be costly. And with smarter growth stalled, Florida’s robust economy will taper off to a recession while property taxes skyrocket to pay the bills.

THE RESULT will be a system that is far worse, not better. That’s why respected environmental leaders refuse to support the amendment. They know this amendment will not put a stop to all development, but will make well-planned, smarter growth impossible – thereby encouraging sprawl that reduces green space and makes effective growth management unachievable. (source)

What’s coming up in part II?

I hope you understand the basics at this point, if you didn’t already. In part II, I will attempt to provide some sort of insight into the rhetoric that it being tossed around by both teams. These questions, which come up over and over in the hype from one team or the other, will be addressed:

• What’s the deal with St. Petersburg?
• What’s the deal with Carrabelle and Orange City?
• How many amendments, exactly will we see on ballots if this passes?
• Will regular old zoning changes be subject to public vote on Amendment 4?
• Will voluminous highly-technical or non-controversial amendments be listed as a single “grouped” item on the ballot or individually?

If you have other questions you would like to see addressed in part II, or other thoughts on Amendment 4, why not leave a comment?