The Miami Herald

Editorial

Posted on May 13, 2009

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.''