Home rule, open spaces and community planning hang in the balance this legislative session

Marion County farmland. [Bruce Ackerman/file photo.]

After a host of bills were filed during this session of the Florida Legislature that would erode local control of development across the state and open hundreds of thousands of agricultural acres to developers without local approval, advocates for preserving communities’ rights to choose how they grow are pushing back against legislators, citing a host of reasons these changes would have negative results, ranging from quality of life concerns to potential impacts on national defense.

One bill that has generated a storm of criticism is Senate Bill 1118, filed by State Sen. Stan McClain, R-Marion, with a companion House Bill 1209, filed by Rep. Kevin Steele, R-Pasco. McLain’s office has not responded to repeated requests from the “Gazette” for comment on the bill; however, during a March 17 Senate Community Affairs Committee meeting and bill analysis, the senator pointed to property owners’ rights to use land as they see fit and the need for Florida to build more houses.

“One of the things that we have to always grapple with is how do we supply enough homes for the people that are moving here and certainly then we get into a back-and-forth between the communities that we live in and how much growth is taking place,” he said. “But it doesn’t change the fact that we have to find ways to make sure that housing is available for those people that are moving here.”

Despite the extensive scrutiny and criticism from the public regarding the loss of local decision-making control of agricultural land, the legislators have maneuvered these and other bills that threaten local control of zoning decisions.

The environmental organization 1000 Friends of Florida warned this week that “HB 579, sponsored by State Rep. Tobin Rogers “Toby” Overdorf, R-Martin, has been amended to require administrative approvals for development in “Agricultural Enclaves.”

“This would mean that agricultural land could be developed into commercial, industrial or residential use without oversight by the local government or opportunity for public input, effectively eliminating community planning for rural areas. The measure will undoubtably result in unchecked sprawl throughout the state. Similar language was originally proposed in SB 1118 earlier this session,” the group wrote in an email “

According to personal financial disclosures filed with the state, both McClain and Overdorf receive the bulk of their income from the construction industry.

Additionally, other bills are moving through committees with the support of Gov. Ron DeSantis that abolish the nine Regional Planning Councils (SB 1264 and HB 1125) and 35 water and soil districts (HB 973 and SB 986) throughout the state.

With the removal of so many tools for local community planning, some environmental advocates and local officials worry that Florida will become a free-for-all for developers.

Local government officials cite concerns

In a letter dated March 28, Marion County commissioners wrote to McClain about their concerns, noting that he knows that Marion County’s “farmland is not only an economic driver but also a defining part of our community’s identity.”

“SB 1118 also weakens long-standing legal principles in land-use decisions,” the letter continued. “Courts have traditionally given local governments significant leeway under the ‘fairly debatable’ standard, which protects their authority in making planning decisions. This bill removes that standard, making it easier to overturn local government decisions and potentially shifting land-use policymaking from elected officials to the courts. While we understand the role of agricultural enclaves, the exclusion of public input from this process is deeply concerning whereas our current process ensures that the public has a voice in the process.”

The commissioners’ letter pointed to the diversity of Florida’s 67 and indicated they felt it best to keep decisions about local land-use and development “in the hands of those who know our community best,” the government closest to the people, to make decisions that best serve their communities.

Board Chairwoman Kathy Bryant told the “Gazette” that it’s been “disheartening” to see so much legislative intent to chip away at the principle of “home rule,” which provides that local governments can enact and enforce laws specific for their jurisdiction so long that it is within the framework of state laws. This allows communities to govern themselves and address local issues to meet their community’s specific needs.

Statewide military installations cite concerns

Several organizations and communities around Florida-based military ranges and installations have also raised concerns about how these agricultural enclaves will impact the military properties.

“We are extremely concerned at the proposed language in several bills and amendments in both chambers that appear to be systemically weakening encroachment protections around our military ranges and installations,” according to a joint letter on March 28 to legislative leaders.

The letter was signed by the South Florida Defense Alliance, Tampa Bay Defense Alliance, South Tampa Chamber, Northwest Florida Defense Coalition, JAXUSA Partnership, City of Jacksonville, EDC of Florida’s Space Coast, National Center for Simulation, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, South Dade Chamber of Commerce, EDC of South Miami-Dade and Walter Area Chamber.

The group indicated that the defense and national security section of Florida’s economy was “recently valued at $102.6 billion with a track record of consistent and strong annual growth.” Agricultural and farmland around military airfields, the letter noted, are “Clear Zones, Accident Potential Zones” and come with significant noise hazards, making potential housing developments in these locations a “safety risk.”

The group also pointed out the financial implications of losing these military installations if their open spaces were not protected from development. Collectively, the group says the installations “generate nearly 1 million jobs in the state that are highly resilient and exceed the per capita average annual income level. The risk of incompatible developments and encroachment on particularly sensitive areas places these military assets at risk of relocation or reduction, threatens public safety, and ultimately can weaken our state’s successful economy,” the letter stated.