|
Hold the
line on rural, open lands
OUR OPINION:
PROTECT THE EVERGLADES, BISCAYNE BAY AND RESIDENTS' QUALITY OF LIFE
Posted on Sun, Mar. 27, 2005 -- MIAMI
HERALD
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/11230740.htm
If you think the congestion on South Florida's roads
and the overcrowding in schools are bad today, just
imagine how much worse they will become if the Miami-Dade
County Commission yields to pressure to move the Urban
Development Boundary line. Such a decision would open
vast tracts of open land to development that would encroach
even farther on the Everglades, making the $8 billion
state and federal restoration of the River of Grass
even more difficult.
Make no mistake, that restoration plan is essential
to the future of South Floridians because its success
would ensure our water supply as well as protect both
the 'Glades and Biscayne Bay'.
The momentum for expanding the UDB in Miami-Dade derives
primarily from Florida City's request to annex 4,292
acres, of which 1,465 acres are part of a proposed development
of regional impact submitted by Atlantic Civil, Inc.
Atlantic wants to build 6,000 housing units representing
an additional 18,000 residents. The County Commission
will consider the annexation request in April, which
is when it can amend its Comprehensive Development Master
Plan, a biennial event. The county's planning department
strongly opposes the annexation, and we agree with its
recommendation to reject it.
The property is outside the UDB. It is in a federally
designated floodplain and is part of the county's hurricane-evacuation
Zone B, meaning mandatory evacuation for all those 18,000
residents. The land also is key to the success of at
least two projects in the Everglades restoration plan.
The UDB has been moved only once in a decade, in 2002,
for Beacon Lakes, the 436-acre industrial park west
of the airport. The acreage wasn't pristine, having
been used for heavy industry -- and eventually became
an illegal dumping ground. Moreover, Beacon Lakes was
supported by all its neighbors. It neither increased
residential density nor harmed crucial wetlands. It
shouldn't be used as a wedge to build residential subdivisions
farther west with all their attendant infrastructure
demands -- schools, roads, sewers, etc.
Those who support moving the line say that development
is necessary to accommodate growth. But development
itself isn't the culprit. Some developers are doing
wonders to revive eastern communities from Miami to
West Palm Beach. The Eastward Ho! movement, for example,
taps into existing infrastructure, which puts less demand
on taxpayers to finance new sewers and roads.
The movement helps to generate critical population masses
that feed mass-transit corridors. This growth also brings
ethnically and economically diverse student populations
to neglected and under-enrolled urban schools.
The real culprit is allowing growth on open land without
planning for new schools, sewer lines and roads at a
matching pace. Both the Miami-Dade and Broward county
commissions have often contravened their master plans,
which lay the groundwork for orderly growth. Or, they
have eschewed the advice of their professional planners.
Such decisions account for today's traffic congestion and crowded
classrooms. Poor planning puts a financial burden on current residents,
rather than spreading costs to future homeowners and businesses, too.
The result is sprawl that doesn't pay for itself, detracts from residents'
quality of life and damages our wonderful natural resources, such
as Biscayne Bay. There are many compelling reasons why Miami-Dade's
UDB shouldn't be moved. Here are our main objections:
I. ROOM TO GROW
Some developers argue that expanding the UDB is necessary to accommodate
the county's growing population demands, including for more affordable
housing. Not so, says the Miami-Dade Planning Department, which
calculates that within the UDB, according to the master plan, the
county has enough space to accommodate 10 to 15 years of construction
to meet population projections. The County Commission itself agreed
with this assessment two years ago in the last master-plan amendment
cycle.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The Everglades restoration plan is just beginning.
At least two crucial components -- the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands and C-111 North Spreader Canal projects
-- are on land outside the UDB. So are many acres
of wetlands on state and federal ''to-buy'' lists
to buffer the park and enhance the replumbing program.
Both Everglades and Biscayne Bay National parks are on record opposing
UDB expansion. Park officials cite protecting the parks and bolstering
the restoration's success, which will guarantee the region's future
water supply. If U.S. taxpayers are committed to spending billions
of dollars to restore the once-mighty River of Grass, how can the
county where the two most affected national parks are located even
consider decisions that will jeopardize restoration?
III. ACCURATE INFORMATION
The County Commission has authorized two in-progress
studies directly affecting decisions on the UDB. The
South Miami-Dade Watershed Study encompasses a 400-square-mile
watershed that includes land outside the UDB. The
watershed is crucial to the health of Biscayne Bay,
which supports marine fisheries and a thriving recreational
boating industry.
The study will determine the proper land-uses and
practices in the watershed. The other study is an
analysis of how unprecedented growth within the UDB
has affected low-income residents in the area and
impacted housing costs. No decisions on the UDB should
even be discussed until the studies are complete.
But consider the results of a 2003 county economic analysis of the
development already occurring in agricultural and rural areas. It
found that this new growth, far from paying for itself, actually
creates annual net deficits in funding for the new service demands
and infrastructure. The survey showed that increasing the density
in the land outside the UDB, now set at one unit per five acres,
to suburban levels would hike county taxpayers' burden by $33 million
over time.
IV. PUBLIC SAFETY
The planning department opposes Florida City's annexation
because it sees little well-defined economic advantage
to the city and many detrimental impacts on the environment
and on efficient hurricane evacuation. Monroe County
opposes Atlantic's proposed development on the firm
grounds that it would greatly impact Keys residents'
and visitors' evacuation. Just think, 18,000 more
people -- who must evacuate -- joining the bumper-to-bumper
flow north on U.S. 1 and the Turnpike.
It makes no sense for the Miami-Dade County Commission
to put residents at that sort of risk. Florida City
could benefit from a land annexation, but one that's
smaller in size, less ecologically sensitive and fits
evacuation demands.
County commissioners should resist the push to expand the UDB. In
holding the line, they will help preserve not just our water supply,
the Everglades and Biscayne Bay but also the quality of life of
Miami-Dade residents.
|
