|
Home
Up
| |
Archives for
State Government:
09 March 2004
Tallahassee's disgrace
Lobbyists in Florida's capital are buying votes, writing bills and
making their fortunes - at the cost of political
integrity.
A Times Editorial
Published March 9, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida lawmakers like to blame the ascendancy of high-powered and
high-priced lobbyists on term limits, as if legislative naivete were
somehow
to blame. But, as St. Petersburg Times capital bureau chief Lucy Morgan
reported on Sunday, those who are well-connected in Tallahassee are
getting
fabulously wealthy by delivering a single product: votes. The
"MoneyWorld"
that Morgan described is about political immorality, not uninformed
innocence.
"These folks who support the political process don't make contributions,
they make investments," says Tom Lee, a Republican senator from Brandon
who is line to become the next Senate president. "...
It scares me that we are
moving down this path. Whoever has the most money, wins."
In the past decade, as Republicans have taken charge of both legislative
chambers and the governor's office, the ante to sit at the big Capitol
table
has reached six and seven figures. The lobbying firms have become
one-stop
shopping for lawmakers, delivering pre-written laws, fine food and
drink,
entertainment and campaign contributions. Thirteen lobbyists now top the
charts at more than $10-million each - $10-million in campaign
contributions
over the past seven years from companies they represent to the
legislators
whose votes they are buying. Last year, lobbyists spent nearly
$8-million,
or roughly $50,000 per lawmaker, simply wining and dining the
Legislature.
That's nearly 10 times as much as they spent in 1980.
Need a new law? The going rate these days is
anywhere from $100,000 to
$1-million, and some lobbyists report being paid as much as $40,000 just
to
deliver the vote of one legislator. The bill delaying Everglades cleanup
was
written by two sugar company lobbyists, and the bill raising most
telephone
rates was written by a telecommunications lobbyist. A team of lobbyists
helped two South Florida hospitals circumvent regulatory denial of their
application for open-heart surgery, and the governor signed the bill
despite
a plea from other hospitals that called it "a slap in the face to the
entire
hospital industry that has played by the rules."
Lest people believe the myth about fresh-faced legislators being
outgunned
by crafty lobbyists, Morgan reveals another reality about the new breed
of
lobbyists: Many of them have played the game for fewer innings than the
politicians who are at bat.
Paul Bradshaw, for example, was just another land-use attorney until he
bet
on the right horse in 1998, working as issues coordinator for Jeb Bush's
gubernatorial campaign and ultimately marrying the woman who would
become
Bush's first chief of staff. At the time, Bradshaw reported a negative
net
worth of $2,000. By 2002, he was one of Tallahassee's hottest lobbyists,
raking in $1.4-million a year and living on a 19-acre estate in Gadsden
County and buying a $1.5-million vacation home in Montana. David
Rancourt,
Bush's deputy chief of staff in 1999, is now a lobbying partner with
Bradshaw and just finished building a 10,000-square-foot, $2-million
mansion
he can call home in Tallahassee.
This kind of excess is enough to make even Ralph Haben, hardly a choir
boy,
blush. Haben, a former House speaker who has parlayed his own political
connections into a lucrative lobbying career, told Morgan: "It's more
about
the money than it's ever been. In the old days, I didn't know how much a
lobbyist contributed. Now they (legislators) know to the penny."
Lawmakers with a shred of decency at least could share their knowledge
of
the pennies. Florida, and this will surprise no one, is mostly hands off
when it comes to regulating the business of lobbying. Unlike some other
states, lobbyists in Florida do not have to disclose their fees, itemize
their expenditures or identify the lawmakers they contact or the bills
they
are pushing. Wisconsin, Massachusetts and South Carolina, for example,
won't
let lobbyists pay for anything a legislator receives. Vermont requires
an
itemized list of every gift valued at more than $5. New Hampshire makes
lobbyists wear bright orange name tags.
In the end, the meteoric rise in the fortunes of Tallahassee lobbyists
is
tied to a decline in political integrity. The Constitution empowers only
the
160 elected members of the House and Senate to vote, and only the
governor
to sign or veto legislation. So when lawmakers profess alarm at the
influence of big-money lobbyists, they are only calling attention to
their
own complicity. The same governor who expresses unease with the extent
to
which people around him are cashing in on his name also continues to
invite
these same lobbyists into his office and appoint them to high-profile
boards
and commissions.
So long as lawmakers are willing to let their votes be bought, the
bidding
war for votes will only continue. That may be good news for luxury
housing
prices in Tallahassee, but it demeans democracy.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/03/09/Opinion/Tallahassee_s_disgrace.shtml
[
____________**___________
10 May 05 Florida
Legislature 2005 Session Wrap up
The 2005
Legislative Session ended on May 6. It was a hectic session, but in
the end had some positive results for growth management. The
damaging “agricultural economic development bill” (SB 716)
with its sprawl-inducing “ag enclave” provisions failed to pass,
thanks in large part to 1000 Friends and a few other groups willing
to oppose this bill. However, its sponsor has committed to
reintroduce this legislation every year until it passes, so more
battles loom ahead.
There was a last minute move to undo the Pinecrest decision
(a legal ruling that required a developer to demolish an apartment
complex built in defiance of Florida’s growth management laws) and
make it easier for Scripps or any biotech project to develop the
Mecca site in Palm Beach County. However, 1000 Friends spent the
last days of the session arguing against this proposed amendment,
which ultimately was never attached to any bill.
Several major growth management bills passed--SB 360 relating
to growth management, SB 444 relating to water planning,
supply and concurrency, and HB 1889 relating to the
affordable housing trust fund.
Senate Bill 360—Growth Management
The most important piece of growth
management legislation to be adopted since Florida’s Growth
Management Act was adopted in1985, SB 360 addresses infrastructure
funding, tighter concurrency, water and schools.
1000 Friends played a key role in shaping this legislation, fighting
successfully to maintain the rights of citizens to challenge
plan amendments to the Capital Improvements Element, and
successfully taking the lead against a charter county provision
that would have undone existing building height, urban boundary, and
other important local regulations.
SB 360 provides about $1.5 billion to be provided to local
governments for infrastructure needs when certain planning
standards are adopted; it also “promises” $750 million per year in
recurring annual appropriations. It requires that by December 1,
2007, all Capital Improvement Elements must demonstrate
through a “financial feasibility test” that adopted levels of
service for required concurrency facilities can be met and
maintained; thereafter an annual update by comprehensive plan
amendment must be performed. If this is not done, no comprehensive
plan amendments may be adopted, and sanctions may apply. A similar
enforcement process is required for EAR-based amendments.
A “pay and go” provision requires developers to pay their
“proportionate share” of the cost new roads and schools needed for
new development, and water must be available at the time of
occupation. 1000 Friends lobbied unsuccessfully to require that
roads and schools also be available at the time of occupation. We
remain very concerned that this provision could prove to be a major
loophole, as once the proportionate share is paid, development is
allowed regardless of concurrency shortfalls.
Other provisions make school concurrency mandatory, except
for built-out or no-growth areas. Local governments are encouraged
to adopt a vision and urban service boundary; if done,
state and regional map amendment reviews are waived. It makes
several technical changes to small scale amendments and
Developments of Regional Impact.
Three important study commissions were created. The School
Concurrency Task Force is to make its report to the legislature
by December 2005. The Impact Review Task Force will make its
report by February 2006. Finally, the Century Commission for a
Sustainable Florida will make its first annual report on all
aspects of growth management in January 2007.
We commend Senate President Tom Lee, House President Allan Bense,
Governor Jeb Bush, Representative Randy Johnson, Senator Mike
Bennett and the other members of the House/Senate Growth Management
Conference Committee for their hard work on this significant
legislation.
SB 444—Water Planning, Supply and
Concurrency
SB 444 allocates funds to the five
Water Management Districts for the development of alternative
water supplies. It tightens requirements for Regional Water
Supply Plans, including mandatory public hearings and local
government coordination, a 20-year planning horizon, and
requirements related to water reservations and minimum flows and
levels. Local governments are required to amend their local
comprehensive plans to be consistent with the regional plan within
18 months of the regional plan’s adoption. It addresses
concurrency, requiring water to be available for new development
by issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
This legislation is the result of a two-year effort of numerous
stakeholders, including 1000 Friends, to craft meaningful
legislation dealing with water planning, supply and concurrency.
Thanks to Senator Paula Dockery and Representative Dana Clarke for
successfully sponsoring this bill.
HB 1889 – Affordable Housing Trust
Fund
HB 1889 allocates $250 million for
hurricane housing funding and $193 million for affordable housing—a
total of $443 million—for FY 05-06. HB 1889 also capped the
distributions to the Housing Trust Funds-- but not until July 1,
2007. While an earlier version placed that cap at $193 million per
year, beginning July 1, 2006 with no annual increase, the final
version enacted set the cap at $243 million beginning July 1, 2007,
with a very small annual increase related to doc stamp collections.
The final version also included technical language that would
classify the $243 million as "recurring revenue"-- the amount that
is in the base appropriation level each year.
In the next few days, 1000 Friends will be
posting more detailed information on these and other pieces of
legislation at
|
__________**__________
2005 Legislative Session Starts Today:
Growth Management a Key Issue
The 2005
Legislative Session commences today and, once again, growth
management promises to be a key issue. Both the House and Senate are
working on drafting growth management legislation, and the
Department of Community Affairs is now into the second draft of its
sweeping reform bill. In February, the Senate Community Affairs
Committee voted to introduce a committee bill on infrastructure
funding.
Additionally, numerous other bills related to growth management have
already surfaced relating to agricultural enclaves, coastal
redevelopment, rural land protection, and a host of water issues.
1000 Friends staff is at the capitol daily, monitoring the many
proposals and advocating on behalf of smart growth. We will continue
to keep you posted.
Here is a summary of some of the key legislation that will be
considered this session. For more information on these and other
bills and regular updates, visit 1000friendsofflorida.org and click
on “.”
Department of Community Affairs Second Draft
Growth Management Bill
Responding to criticism about the first draft of its sweeping growth
management reform bill, the Department of Community Affairs issued a
second draft on February 11. As with the earlier version, this draft
limits DCA’s authority to comment and appeal local government
comprehensive plan amendments to only those that raise a “priority
state interest.” The newly-abbreviated list of Priority State
Interests relate to strategic intermodal system facilities; public
education facilities; significant conservation and recreation lands;
listed plant and animal species; strategic habitat and important
natural communities; water supply; and significant wetlands and
surface waters.
The bill has numerous other provisions of interest related to
visioning, public school capacity, and funding for capital
improvements. It establishes “enhanced” comprehensive planning,
including infrastructure development encouragement areas (IDEAS). If
a local government includes fiscal impact analysis modeling, the
enhanced comprehensive plan option, and measures to adequately
protect priority state interests, its plan may be “certified” and,
with the exception of EAR-based amendments, amendments would not be
subject to state review or petition.
The bill makes some very significant changes to the process for the
adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. Generally, with the
exception of the adoption of new comprehensive plans and EAR
amendments, the Department would not be required to review
amendments, and the amendment adoption procedure would be similar to
what is place for the adoption of a small-scale amendment. Finally,
the bill includes a number of provisions related to EAR amendments,
and provides that if a local government fails to adopt its EAR
amendments in a timely manner, it is precluded from adopting any new
amendments.
Agricultural Economic Development--Senate
Bill 716 by Argenziano/ House Bill 561 by Pickins
We are watching with concern Senate Bill 716, which would make it
easier to convert agricultural lands for residential development.
Last year, 1000 Friends led the successful effort to convince
Governor Bush to veto similar sprawl-inducing legislation. As with
last year’s bill, SB 716 expands Florida’s private property rights
law to allow legal challenges when a county changes an agricultural
land use or zoning classification or lowers the residential density
permitting on agricultural lands. It also stipulates that
comprehensive plan amendments for “agricultural enclaves” shall be
“deemed to prevent urban sprawl.” An agricultural enclave is defined
as a parcel of land of up to 7,500 acres that is surrounded on 75
percent of its perimeter by residential, commercial, or industrial
development, and for which public services will be provided within
five years.
Coastal Redevelopment--Senate
Bill 976 by Jones/ House Bill 976 by Rice
Also back from last year, this bill would authorize up to five
coastal redevelopment pilot projects, in effect of allowing
increases in density in the coastal high hazard area if the local
government enters an agreement with DCA and implements certain
hazard mitigation measures.
Florida Springs Protection Act--House
Bill 1185 by Stansel
The bill requires the Department of Environmental Protection to
delineate the springsheds and primary protection zones for all first
and second magnitude springs. The Department must through rule
establish criteria for the impairment of first and magnitude springs
and creates a list of impaired springs. Next, DEP must establish and
implement total maximum daily loads for all impaired first and
second magnitude springs in the state. Within one year of DEP’s
completion of springshed and protection zone delineations, each
local government must recommend amendments to its local government
comprehensive plan that result in the protection of water quality
and quantity of water discharged from any first or second magnitude
spring whose springshed is located wholly or partly within the
jurisdiction of the local government.
Local Government--Senate Bill
1886
This bill completely changes the purpose of the Local Government
Comprehensive Plan Certification Program set forth in 163.3246, F.S.
Instead of recognizing a limited number of local governments that
have implemented exemplary planning practices, it would now provide
regulatory relief to local governments and the Department of
Community Affairs for local governments “with a demonstrated record
of effectively implementing and enforcing comprehensive plans.” In
addition, the bill exempts developments within a certified area from
the development of regional impact review under s. 380.06, F.S. It
also includes several infrastructure finance mechanisms, including
an infrastructure sales surtax, school capital outlay surtax, local
option motor fuel tax, and a real estate transfer surtax on deeds,
with proceeds limited to infrastructure.
Regional Water Supply Planning and Water
Resource and Water Supply Development--Senate Bill 440
and 444 by Dockery
Over the interim, Senator Dockery convened a work group to address
the statutory procedure for setting water reservations. In the
course of these discussions, development and utility interests have
insisted that reservations should be linked to the regional water
supply planning process and that a reservation should not be made
unless adequate water supply had been identified for future
consumptive users. This debate emerged into general agreement that
new funding sources need to be developed for alternative water
supply development.
Rural Land Protection--Senate
Bill 242 by Dockery/House Bill 1279
Back for the third time, this bill seeks to create and fund the
Rural Lands Program Trust Fund of the Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services for the purpose of funding the purchase of
conservation easements and long-term management agreements over
agricultural lands. The bill authorizes the issuance of rural lands
protection bonds. After the 2004 legislative session, Governor Bush
vetoed a $5 million appropriation for the program.
Waterfront Property--Senate Bill
1316 by Community Affairs/House Bill 955
The bill includes a number of provisions designed to encourage the
preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts.
Coastal counties must include in their future land use element
criteria that encourage the preservation of commercial and working
waterfronts. Each coastal management element must include strategies
to preserve working waterfronts. The Board of Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Trust Fund must encourage the use of sovereign
submerged lands for water-dependent uses and public access. The bill
also establishes within the Department of Community Affairs the
Waterfronts Florida program. Finally, the bill allows the owners of
recreational and commercial working waterfront facilities to defer
payment of a portion of the combined total of the ad valorem taxes
and any non-ad valorem assessments that would be covered by a tax
certificate levied on that property.
Wekiva Parkway & Protection Act--Senate
Bill 908 by Constantine/ House Bill 1013
This “glitch” bill clarifies certain requirements from last year's
Wekiva Parkway & Protection Act, including provisions that limit the
application of certain requirements for stormwater management and
wastewater facility planning to only the portion of the local
government located within the Wekiva Study Area. An amendment grants
the Department of Environmental Protection discretion certain
rulemaking related to nitrogen reduction strategies in the Wekiva
Study Area, but omits any deadline for undertaking such rulemaking.
1000 Friends is also monitoring a number of
other bills this session. Visit 1000friendsofflorida.org and click
on “” for more
information.
|
__________**__________
17 Mar
04
DAMAGING DRI BILL TO BE CONSIDERED ON TUESDAY,
MARCH 23
The Florida Legislature is currently considering damaging growth
management legislation that, among other things, reduces state, regional, and
local authority to approve or deny large-scale developments. Senator Mike
Bennett’s (R-Bradenton) SB 1174 and HB 1205 by Representative Mike Davis
(R-Naples) would radically overhaul the Development of Regional Impacts (DRI)
process, the means by which large development projects are reviewed and approved
in Florida.
On Tuesday, March 23, the Senate Comprehensive Planning Committee plans to vote
on SB 1174, with the expectation that some version will pass. This bill would
significantly reduce the number of DRI reviews by dramatically increasing the
residential threshold. It would also also limit the kinds of issues that can be
raised during the review process, eliminate the ability of local governments to
require that future changes to approved DRIs be consistent with future
amendments to local comprehensive plans, and exempt marinas from recently
developed master planning requirements that, among other provisions, protect
Florida’s manatee.
ACTION NEEDED:
Call members of the Senate Committee on
Comprehensive Planning and tell them that bill is very damaging to growth
management, and that you oppose any effort to weaken the DRI process.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Chair: Steven A. Geller (D-Hallandale Beach) – Phone
850.487-5097, geller.steven.web@flsenate.gov
Vice Chair: Daniel Webster (R-Winter Garden) - Phone
850.487.5047, drawdy.ann.s09@flsenate.gov
Nancy Argenziano (R-Crystal River) - Phone 850.487.5017,
argenziano.nancy.web@flsenate.gov
Michael S. 'Mike' Bennett (R-Bradenton) - Phone 850.487.5078
bennett.mike.web@flsenate.gov
Larcenia J. Bullard (D-Miami) - Phone 850.487.5127,
bullard.larcenia.web@flsenate.gov
Walter G. 'Skip' Campbell, Jr. (D-Tamarac) - Phone 850.487.5095,
campbell.walter.web@flsenate.gov
Lee Constantine (R-Altamonte Springs) - Phone 850.487.5050,
constantine.lee.s22@flsenate.gov
Bill Posey (R-Rockledge) - Phone 850.487.5053,
posey.bill.web@flsenate.gov
BACKGROUND:
Drafted by the Association of Florida Community Developers,
which includes as its members the state’s largest developers, these bills would
significantly reduce the number of DRI reviews. Instead of residential DRI
review thresholds based on the population of each county, the bills call for a
'one-size-fits-all' approach. Developments throughout the state would need more
than 1000 houses to trigger DRI review, while currently as few as 250 homes in
some smaller counties can trigger review.
Because of their smaller populations and more limited scale of developments, 34
of Florida’s 67 counties would be highly unlikely to go through the DRI process
because their residential threshold could double, triple, or even quadruple
under the proposed legislation. Furthermore, a bill that passed three years ago
increased DRI thresholds by 150 percent for areas designated as Rural Areas of
Critical Economic Concern. Currently, 28 counties in northwest and south central
Florida have been designated. Combined with the filed versions of SB 1174 and HB
1205, those counties with the smallest or sometimes no planning staff would only
start reviewing projects with more than 2500 homes, which is higher than the
current threshold for highly urbanized Sarasota County. Smaller communities,
which often have the weakest or least sophisticated planning requirements, would
only be able to take advantage of the DRI process on massive developments.
The proposed legislation would also limit the kinds of issues that can be raised
during the review process, eliminate the ability of local governments to require
that future changes to approved DRIs be consistent with future amendments to
local comprehensive plans, and exempt marinas from recently developed master
planning requirements that, among other provisions, protect Florida’s manatee.
1000 Friends of Florida recognizes the need to periodically readdress this
state’s growth management process. But if this bill passes, there is no point in
even having a DRI program. Legislation of this nature just adds fuel to Florida
Hometown Democracy, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow
citizens to vote on every amendment to their local comprehensive plan. Because
of their large size, DRIs often require comprehensive plan amendments.
1000 Friends of Florida was created in 1986 to serve as a watchdog over this
state’s growth management process. Others on record opposing these DRI bills
include the Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Counties, Save the
Manatee Club, and Florida Department of Community Affairs. |
