Say No to Increased Density

**lenzoe** · 04-30-2005, 10:14 AM

This is an opinion piece from the April 30, Walton Sun. I think it's well written and I agree with the author's sentiments.

Aside from writing opinion pieces for the Sun, who would you contact (and how) to ensure the same opinion is heard by the the Commissioners and anyone else in a position to affect decisions on approving or denying density changes and variances?

---------
---------

Just say no

The County Commissioners are still attempting to change county codes to allow increased density in the V-zone, that part of the coast most susceptible to storms and they are still attempting to change the codes to allow more density in the flood plains. They continue to approve request after request for increased density on various pieces of property throughout the county as individuals hoping to make more money come forward asking that their land use be changed.
By getting the BCC to change the land use designation of their property, individuals may be allowed 8 or even 12 units per acre. These changes allow for more structures and make the property more valuable. These changes can significantly increase the density in our community.
By changing the land use to one that allows greater density, the county is allowing not only an increase in the number of buildings we have, the number of parking lots we have, the number of people we have and the number of stormwater issues we have, they are also increasing the number of cars on our roads.
Traffic on 30A is becoming unbearable at times. It continues to get worse.
The BCC has hired consultants to study the traffic problems on 30A. The consultants are looking at, among other things, concurrency, the amount of traffic our roads can handle and still function properly. I am optimistic that this study may help the situation in some ways.
One of the things the consultants are not looking at is the impact of development that has not yet been presented but that will certainly be coming our way.
I think the BCC should be looking at the big picture. They should have a build out plan for South Walton and the rest of the county. Lots that sit empty today will be developed next year, or the next year or the following year and those developments will generate more traffic.
I believe if the BCC looked at the traffic that will come from yet to be developed land they would see they can�t afford to be approving increased density today.
There are limits to the amount of traffic our roads can handle. In handing out increased density today, the BCC is in effect taking away what should be held in reserve for future developments. There will certainly be a lack of available concurrency or trips on our roads for future developments.
What will the BCC do in three years when individuals get ready to develop their empty land? I feel certain the BCC won�t say no to that development and I�m not sure they should say no.
But I don�t want to hear them say we�ve approved so many developments we now need three roads cut through the state forest to alleviate this bumper to bumper traffic. I suggest the BCC stop granting requests for increased density and plan for the future, plan for our citizens, for our visitors and our communities.
Richard Fowlkes
Blue Mountain Beach

**kurt** · 04-30-2005, 11:09 AM

� Dist. 1 -Scott Brannon, (850) 622-3081, brascott@co.walton.fl.us

� Dist. 2 - Kenneth Pridgen, (850) 834-6328, prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us

� Dist. 3 - Larry Jones (850) 892-8474, jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us

� Dist. 4 - Ro Cuchens, (850) 835-4834 cucro@co.walton.fl.us

� Dist. 5 - Cindy Meadows, (850) 622-3059 meacindy@co.walton.fl.us

**lenzoe** · 04-30-2005, 11:13 AM

Thank you.

**SoWalSally** · 05-02-2005, 04:27 PM

There's 2 reasons a politician or gov't employee would support increased density (which really devalues the worth of a place, if not the land prices):

1 - They honestly believe an owner deserves to squeeze out every short term dollar. They couch this in the term "property rights".

2 - They are gaining financially from their own land value increase, or from developers lining their pockets, and/or the developer got them the job in the first place.

My money is always on number 2.

**Smiling JOe** · 05-02-2005, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by SoWalSally

There's 2 reasons a politician ...
2 - They are gaining financially from their own land value increase, or from developers lining their pockets, and/or the developer got them the job in the first place.

My money is always on number 2.

I think number 2 sounds like the most likely answer.