The Miami Herald has consistently supported protecting the Urban Development Boundary, even if the newspaper's publishers have been 'fraidy cats; failing to offer critical views of the excesses of the development community (except for supporting Jim Morin's cartoons) that lead to so much overdevelopment whose misery and costs total billions in its subscriber area alone.
Reading today's editorial reinforces the sharp divide that exists between the newspaper and its advertisers from citizens who subscribe to the Herald. The Herald acknowledges stakeholders from government and the development community but fails to even mention that the critical support for the Urban Development Boundary to be contested in court is through the involvement of citizens who are, often, unrecognized and "Un-Heralded" volunteers. If you were to read today's Herald editorial alone, and not this blog, you would get the impression that it was just the development community, the county commission, and objectors from state agencies and local planners from government who had taken the Urban Development Boundary issues to court. The UDB issues would never have happened without the active involvement of citizens and civic groups that rely on contributions from the general public. You should write your own checks, in thanks, to them.
Volunteers like Karen Esty and Barry White: two citizens who stepped forward to put their names as affected parties on legal complaints in relation to the UDB. There is Michael Pizzi (who represented them), an attorney and civic activist, who also stepped to the plate and won election as a public official in Miami Lakes (running against a candidate thrown in his way by county commissioner Natacha Seijas and her developer supporters.) Volunteers like Pat and John Wade, who spent years and years as plaintiffs against bad development decisions that lead to the glut in housing and infrastructure deficits that plague this county.
Special mention, in the Herald, is deserved for Richard Grosso, Robert Hartsell and the staff of the Everglades Law Center, based in Broward and Nova University. Given the scale of our communal problem with overdevelopment, the Everglades Law Center should be staffed by 100 lawyers. But few step up to fund and contribute to the ELC: as a result, a handful of lawyers-- a single handful-- cover this critically important part of the public interest. (You can signal your thanks for their work by writing the biggest contribution you can, to their efforts on behalf of the public.)
1000 Friends of Florida deserves note, for its support of UDB issues. But in the main part, the UDB is supported by local groups with paid staff supported by members like Clean Water Action, Tropical Audubon, National Parks Conservation Association, and the Urban Environment League. These are groups that deserve mention in the Herald, not just Eyeonmiami, for organizing public opinion polls, radio ads, mailings, who attend public meetings and coordinate turnout to county commission meetings: turnout, by the way, that is far different than the rent-a-crowd performance by Lowe's or other applicants to move the Urban Development Boundary. It is a bizarre manifestation of corrupt democracy to know that most of the bought bodies to fill seats at County Hall have no idea they just to provide "cover" for the bad decisions of the unreformable majority of the county commission.
The development community advertises in the Herald. Citizens only subscribe. It is an enduring frustration with the Herald that civic groups who engage to protect and uphold environmental and growth management laws are left out. It is a calculated appeasement of the paper's advertising base: we will offer our strong views to you, Mr. Developer, but we will stay within the lines; ie. that civic activists are "outside" the lines. We value your contribution to our enterprise, Mr. Developer, and we won't incur your anger by blessings that hurt our respective bottom lines.
The good commissioners on UDB votes deserve to be singled out, too: Katy Sorenson, especially, who has endured disrespect from the unreformable majority on growth issues for as long as she has been on the commission. Commissioner Sorenson has an articulate ally in Carlos Gimenez; they have been joined by Sally Heyman, and periodically by Rebecca Sosa and the current chairman, Dennis Moss. County Mayor Carlos Alvarez has been steadfast on UDB issues, except the Hialeah application in 2004: showing that when county-wide elections are at stake, the Urban Development Boundary is a very powerful issue for voters and candidates.
But the unreformable majority needs to be called out, too: their leader is Natacha Seijas. She is supported, always, by Pepe Diaz, Joe Martinez, and Bruno Barreiro in particular, and on the UDB issues by Barbara Jordan, Audrey Edmunson, and Dorrin Rolle. Their campaign finance reports-- filled with contributions from speculators, developers and rock miners outside the UDB-- tell you all you need to know.
Finally, understand this about the Miami-Dade delegation to the state legislature. Far from the prying eyes of citizens (and of the Herald, too) these elected officials have been promoting new bills that are highly damaging to the chances to protect our communities from rapacious, greedy developers and land speculators and rock miners. If there is one phone call you can make on Monday morning, it would be to ask Gov. Charlie Crist to veto the horrendous legislation that they supported: SB 360 and SB 2080. I'll be writing more about these lousy bills from the Idiocracy on Monday.
Here is a link to the full Miami Herald editorial, or, click more ...
Clear UDB message: Don't move it
OUR OPINION: Administrative law judge backs up planners, state agencies
Even though his split-the-baby decision allowed one project outside the Urban Development Boundary to go forward, administrative law Judge Bram D.E. Canter basically sided with the majority of stakeholders in the ongoing battle to manage growth in Miami-Dade County. In the case of the UDB, the majority is decidedly against moving the line for development further west.
However, those for moving the line, minority or not, are a powerful bloc: the majority of the County Commission and the development community. Defying both the experts and the market, they keep pushing at the UDB.
Standing against them from a growth-management aspect are the state Department of Community Affairs and South Florida Regional Planning Council. The county's Planning and Zoning Department opposed expanding the UDB because there is a healthy inventory of developable land inside the line.
On behalf of the county's water supply the state Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management District put the brakes on past attempts to move the line. Both said the county couldn't justify new growth until it came up with new sources of water besides the Biscayne Aquifer. In response, county officials scrambled to devise alternative water supplies in a plan that will take decades to complete and cost millions of dollars.
Judge Canter agreed with the experts' arguments for not moving the UDB west. He rejected a proposed Lowe's Superstore at the intersection of Tamiami Trail and Southwest 137th Avenue on a 52-acre site. There is ''no need for more commercial land, and no need for a home improvement store, in the area of the Lowe's site,'' said the judge, relying on the county planners' data.
In the other case, Judge Canter ruled that a commercial project that would expand the UDB on 42 acres on west Kendall Drive for shops and offices complies with state law. He ruled that its particular features make it not very conducive for agricultural use. In other words, it's more an anomaly than a precedent setter when it comes to future applications to move the boundary.
There's a message here for the proponents of moving the UDB: The law, the expert information, logic -- not to mention the dismal economy -- all tell the same story. This is not the right time to expand development west and south in Miami-Dade.
In his ruling on Lowe's, Judge Canter said that it is ''beyond fair debate'' that any real demand exists for more commercial development in that area. The same can be said for residential development in a county with one of the highest home foreclosure rates in the state. It's time for the County Commission to say, ``Message heard. Message understood.''