Amendment 4

The comp plan may affect furure developments but doesn't address specific developments. The changes and modifications are often technical in nature and might need some explanation to a voter. The process is open to public input along the way. Sometimes it is a word changed here, a sentence there, in order to clarify existing language.

Sometimes changes are larger and deal with building in a flood zone, buffers, roadways, etc.

As to whether amendment 4 is a good idea or not, I think it might depend on where you live, the quality of your planning department, and the level of public involvement.

The average citizen is not qualified to make some of the technical changes and some of the requirements for well planned community growth. I know some will take great issue with this but it equates to would you go to your attorney for treatment of a tumor? Community development is as technical and complex as many other occupations. That is why we have planning departments, utility departments, code enforcement and a myriad of other enities charged with making sure our growth is what is best for all citizens. This does not even include our local elected officials who spend much time and offer open discussion to solve growth problems. "Hometown Democracy" as this is called by some, is a bad idea and a way for some to bypass our present system, not improve it.

I understand that there is a technical part to this, but the actual choice on the ballot is yes/no not multiple choice or opinion. Are you seriously telling my that you feel all of the current county commissioners are better versed in planning that the average public?

I understand that there is a technical part to this, but the actual choice on the ballot is yes/no not multiple choice or opinion. Are you seriously telling my that you feel all of the current county commissioners are better versed in planning that the average public?

No, some are, some are not. But I am telling you that people who work in the various departments have the education and experience necessary to assure proper planning and growth. Admittedly, it doesn't always happen and there are always mistakes made but that is true with any area of expertise. The average public not only has neither the education or experience to make many complex decisions regarding the comp plan and land use planning, most of them could care less and can be subject to be led like a herd of sheep to a desired voting result.

No, some are, some are not. But I am telling you that people who work in the various departments have the education and experience necessary to assure proper planning and growth. Admittedly, it doesn't always happen and there are always mistakes made but that is true with any area of expertise. The average public not only has neither the education or experience to make many complex decisions regarding the comp plan and land use planning, most of them could care less and can be subject to be led like a herd of sheep to a desired voting result.

So you're for government decision and denying voters a voice?

Just want to make that clear.

Again the voting is not a multiple choice or essay, it's a simple yes/no. As far as everything that goes behind a comp plan change such as environmental impact, drainage, utilities, etc. that would all be worked out first and then the public would be able to decide if they wanted to allow the change.

For instance, when Water Color, Water Sound, Rosemary Beach, Alys Beach, etc. went in they would have been voted on by the public. I'm not trying to weigh the pros and cons of those developments as they are approved and either complete or on their way to that point. I'm simply pointing out that there would have been a voter decision to allow them.

For instance, when Water Color, Water Sound, Rosemary Beach, Alys Beach, etc. went in they would have been voted on by the public. I'm not trying to weigh the pros and cons of those developments as they are approved and either complete or on their way to that point. I'm simply pointing out that there would have been a voter decision to allow them.

Changes to the com plan aren't always yes or no issues, and as I stated before, specific projects aren't addressed.

Not - "should WaterColor be approved" - yes or no, circle one. But rather, "should buffers be increased by 10 feet in zone X, if condition Y applies"? Sometimes the correct thing to do is dependent on several factors which are not going to be explained on a bumper sticker.

I like better the idea of careful consideration and public input in the process.

For instance, when Water Color, Water Sound, Rosemary Beach, Alys Beach, etc. went in they would have been voted on by the public. I'm not trying to weigh the pros and cons of those developments as they are approved and either complete or on their way to that point. I'm simply pointing out that there would have been a voter decision to allow them.

As I read what you posted above, I don't think this would have been the case. Individual developments are not comprehensive plan amendments. If a developer needs a comp plan amendment in order to get a permit, then that proposed amendment would be voted on. But this does not sound like it requires voter approval for specific developments.
Did WaterColor, Rosemary, etc. require comp plan amendments??

The comp plan may not act on individual developments but does it control or include the future land use? If so if a new development wishes to start work in an area with a land use that is not compatable such as a residential community along an area of 98 that is currently agg or some other that would require a vote to change that land use correct?

That's the way I read it, Tech Pyle. I think the answer to your second question would be yes. but I'm not certain. Need to read the whole amendment and check with a planner to be sure.
Re your first question, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) is a part of the comp plan, which does govern future land use. A FLUM amendment is what would be needed to change the current land use, say as in your example from agriculture to some other use.

That's the way I read it, Tech Pyle. I think the answer to your second question would be yes. but I'm not certain. Need to read the whole amendment and check with a planner to be sure.
Re your first question, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) is a part of the comp plan, which does govern future land use. A FLUM amendment is what would be needed to change the current land use, say as in your example from agriculture to some other use.

Thanks NotDeadYet.
Now I am going to go fearlessly way over my head with a bunch of assumption on my part.

1: All FLUM changes would require a vote.
2: Most new developments occure in areas where the FLUM shows a lower density or usage such as a major devolopment on previously undeveloped land and would require a change to the FLUM.
3: If 1 and 2 are correct (whew what some assumptions I am making) then most newdevelopments would require a vote to go forward.

Now am I correct or am I wrong with my assumptions in 1 or 2 or am I just wrong in 3?

Now some more questions.

Given that there were no county wide votes taken in 2009 then anyone requiring a vote for the comp plan or flum changes would eaither have to wait for the next county wide vote wich could be close to two years away in some instances or someone would have to pay for the vote. This wait would stiffle many developments. If a special vote was done who would pay for it? If the taxpayers expect your taxes to increase to pay for this if the developers expect fewer developments. Knowing how dismal turnout is for even presidential elections who would go to vote for the special flum / comp plan changes that would be needed for developments? I propose that only those with direct interest would show up. This means that the adjoining land owners who are generaly opposed to all changes around them (NIMBA) and the developers friends. This would mean that most of these developments would not go through. Sounds like a great way to stop development to me.

I understand that there is a technical part to this, but the actual choice on the ballot is yes/no not multiple choice or opinion. Are you seriously telling my that you feel all of the current county commissioners are better versed in planning that the average public?

And you think the voter in Paxton is more qualified to vote yes/no on an issue in Inlet Beach? Start looking at voter turnout, especially in an off year election, and this could get very scary. So the developer just has to come up with a plan to get yes votes to the polls. How hard can that be in a special election? Look to those special elections the school district has held in the past for tax increases, they are getting 85% yes votes, yet in a general elections tax cuts are getting 67% approval. This directly shows the problem with low turnout special elections. And the cost to hold one, last time the district did it was just $50K.

Now I am going to go fearlessly way over my head with a bunch of assumption on my part.

1: All FLUM changes would require a vote.
2: Most new developments occure in areas where the FLUM shows a lower density or usage such as a major devolopment on previously undeveloped land and would require a change to the FLUM.
3: If 1 and 2 are correct (whew what some assumptions I am making) then most newdevelopments would require a vote to go forward.

Now am I correct or am I wrong with my assumptions in 1 or 2 or am I just wrong in 3?

I think assumption #1 is correct. Number 2, I am not so sure. Certainly during the boom it was mostly true - there were so many requested FLUM amendments that the county had to go to a lottery system because the number of acres that can be changed on the FLUM annually is limited by state law. When the bottom fell out, quite a few properties that had received a FLUM change never got built on. Or, they got carved up into the vacant subdivisions with none or one or two houses that we now see sitting around growing weeds in the brick pavers. A lot of developers got shut out not so much by the lack of an amendment as by the economic conditions. I don't know what is currently left out there that could be successfully developed today with or without an amendment. Many of the FLUM amendments were hotly contested not just by adjacent property owners but by community groups worried about the long term effects of increased density and lack of supporting infrastructure.
As to the mechanics, I'm not sure how a referendum works.
There is something else to keep in mind here. The text quoted at the beginning of this thread says the amendment does not cover re-zonings. In any other county in Florida, a zoning change would be the way to get your higher density or change from ag to commercial, etc. In Walton County a FLUM amendment takes the place of a re-zoning, because we don't have true zoning. There is a whole history behind the adoption of the comprehensive plan in Walton County. But the bottom line is that this county was the last one in the state to adopt a comp plan as mandated by state law. There was amazing foot-dragging, and an astonishing lack of professionalism in the existing planning process. Several non-compliant plans were sent to the state in a half-hearted attempt to comply, and the state finally gave up and created the South Walton Conservation and Development Trust, which wrote the plan. A long story. But I do think it is safe to say that amendment 4 would have a generally different effect in Walton County than in the rest of the state because of the uniqueness of our comp plan.
Why don't you contact SWCC and ask them to do a program on the implications of amendment 4 specifically for this county?

I think they need to throw the whole comp plan thing out! It's done nothing but create headache, strife, unnecessary expense, and a whole lot of trouble! That and create a lot of busy bodies medling in everybody else's business!

I think they need to throw the whole comp plan thing out! It's done nothing but create headache, strife, unnecessary expense, and a whole lot of trouble! That and create a lot of busy bodies medling in everybody else's business!

And I thought I was old fashioned and behind on community planning.

And I thought I was old fashioned and behind on community planning.

Community planning is one thing but all I see in most cases are malcontents, NIMBY's and neer do wells trying to screw other people or obstruct any progress. Fine tuning is needed but I am not sure Amendment $ is the way.

Community planning is one thing but all I see in most cases are malcontents, NIMBY's and neer do wells trying to screw other people or obstruct any progress. Fine tuning is needed but I am not sure Amendment $ is the way.

Yes, but as usual florida girl is advocating concrete plants next to nursing homes. She doesn't like anything she doesn't understand or can't be explained on a Nascar commemorative drink cup.

Yes, but as usual florida girl is advocating concrete plants next to nursing homes. She doesn't like anything she doesn't understand or can't be explained on a Nascar commemorative drink cup.

That was over the top.

BALLOT TITLE: Referenda Required For Adoption And Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans.

BALLOT SUMMARY: Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides definitions.

I see pros and cons to this. Pros - put more power in the hands of voters, take power out of the hands of locally elected officials. It'll also slow development, and in an area like SoWal, that's probably a good thing. Cons - you can't get much more local than the planning commission. If you can't trust those folks who can you trust? There is also the cost of and time required in holding referendums to consider. Generally I'd lean toward voting no, based on my experience with the failures of direct democracies. We put those folks on the commissioners board for a reason, if we don't like their decisions, we should replace them with folks who'll make better ones.