The following document is provided by the LWVVC for your information, and posting on this site does not imply an endorsement by the LWVVC. It was written by Aiden Magee of the Volusia Flagler Environmental Action Committee, Inc., and Mr. Magee has agreed to have it posted on this site. It has been converted for the web, but it has not been edited.

SMART GROWTH REPORT response

Sir/madam,

On behalf of the Volusia Flagler Environmental Action Committee, Inc. I would like to reject publicly the recommendations of the Smart Growth Report as advocated. This report is fundamentally flawed if it is aimed at protecting the environment. This report is being referred to by stakeholders, developers and those politicians sympathetic to the developers cause as being the 'Smart Growth' way forward in Volusia County.

I submit the report is the 'Dumb Growth' way forward because it promotes clusters, which are sprawl.

Might I remind you that the recent controversial ballot initiative on boundaries to restrict urban growth in Volusia resulted in 73% of the electorate favoring the idea. The electorate rejected sprawl.

.

The Smart Growth Report advocates development throughout unincorporated Volusia via clusters.

A developers utopia, I say. Their submission alludes to the idea that cluster development is good for the environment. In reality, clusters of high density development would have great detrimental effect on the environment. These clusters would develop into satellite towns, and eventually into cities because those clusters would have to be serviced by grocery stores and other service providers such as churches, schools, medical/emergency service providers, and of course water/sewer and road provision. Where water/sewer and roads lead, more development follows. This is not rocket science. The electorate knows this and demands curtailment of this policy. The developers, including their entourage of sympathetic stakeholders and Smart Growth Report advocates, seem to have missed the message.

The Smart Growth Report recommends that the Volusia Conservation Corridor in the center of our County be further endangered by weakening the provision of protection it presently enjoys. They propose including it in map "A" which should attract the highest degree of protection however not one immune to development. Might I remind you that the Volusia electorate approved to tax themselves twice through the provision of bonds to fund the purchase of this land so as to establish this Conservation Corridor. It must be protected and enlarged to function as a sustainable project administered by Volusia Forever.

It is further alluded that map "B" identifies where growth must be directed to appropriate areas. Would it be fair to say that those areas most suitable for development would be where developers have already purchased the land and are waiting for approval to develop? The Report does not take cognizance of the fact that within this area "B" there are presently comprehensive plans painfully developed over years with great debate and deliberation identifying Environmentally Sensitive Corridors in many neighborhoods including Deep Creek, Little Haw Creek, the Tomoka River system, Spruce Creek and Spruce Swamp, Turnbull Creek and Turnbull Hammock. Is this an oversight by the writers of the Report or are we to believe these protected areas are now fair game for development under the guise of Smart Growth?

The Report goes on to recognize the dilemma that presently exists between the cities and the County.

The cities feel compelled to expand their tax base by annexing unincorporated land inside their boundaries. This has the same adverse effect upon the environment as developers advocating clusters because it inevitably leads to installing water/ sewer and roads to service those areas. This practice has to cease.

In order for it to cease there has to be agreement between the cities and the County to agree to a comprehensive plan and to regulate and enforce that plan. One possible way to resolve this dilemma would be to retain the zoning status of the parcel seeking annexation. The County Council Commissioners have pledged in section 202.3 of the Charter that they shall protect the environment. There is no purpose in compiling a comprehensive plan without enforcing that plan vigorously. Legislation has to be provided that is enforceable. Unlike today where the comprehensive plans that are in effect are abused through the provision of small scale amendments to satisfy the whims of supporters of politicians who refuse to stand up to the plate and exercise their mandate.

This is not going to be an easy task for any body to implement however it has to be achieved.

Property rights of all those affected have to be protected and fair compensation offered for the advancement of any agreement, however, it is not a task that should be undertaken by a group of 3 County Council politicians and 3 mayors plus a school board member as suggested by the Smart Growth Report.

This suggestion does not acknowledge that schools follow development. Providing school services to a community already established is the job of the school board. It is imperative that the schools board be fully briefed, informed and involved where a need exists for establishing schools, however, they have no mandate to make decisions where growth will be directed. They ought not be directing such major policy creation.

It is also naive to suggest that the electorate will be swayed by the constant reference to the term promises throughout the Report. Have the stakeholders promoting acceptance of this Report ever been on a promise? Obviously not. There is no recourse when a promise is broken. Is that where the stakeholders want to lead us? To a mythical land called Oz, full of promises? No thank you. I will refrain from going there.

There are strengths and weaknesses in the current VGMC system. It might be possible do develop a more authoritative body from that concept that can regulate any arrived at agreement between the cities and the County. The more participatory involvement by representatives of the community is certainly the more democratic way of plotting our future. There is a definite need for checks and balances to provide greater protection for the environment. Environmentalists are presently not represented, however, they should be.

The lead/supreme authority in all these negotiations would have to reflect who we the electorate pay our taxes to for the administration of services within the County. That is the County Council. The County Council have more than adequate qualified staff to advise them and guide them through the problematic times ahead, however, that advice must be aimed at achieving sufficient sustainable and responsible growth in harmony with our environment, to enhance the living standards of the electorate and tax payer. A difficult mix to achieve, however one worth striving for.

What is sustainable and responsible growth? Might I direct you to the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development AGENDA 21. This web site illustrates what most of the rest of the World has been doing in this regard for the past number of years. Again it is not rocket science. It is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally between organizations of the United Nations system, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans impact the environment. Unfortunately the USA has not signed up for it. However there is no need for redeveloping the wheel. Volusia County can use these guide lines and proven successes in charting our future instead of blindly following the calls for Smart Growth as advocated by this flawed Smart Growth Report. Put one hundred lawyers in a room and ask them to define Smart Growth and you will end up with one hundred different definitions. The one that will prevail however is that one which will reflect the interests of those willing to spend the most dollars on the outcome, that will realize their investment. I will allow you to make your own call on who that will be.

Finally, the Smart Growth Report advocates put great importance upon their belief that the Charter Review Committee are considering various ways to implement their smart growth. This is not the remit of the Charter Review Committee. The remit of the Charter Review is to review the Current Volusia County Charter. Not to consider ways to implement this ill conceived and flawed Smart Growth Report.

I offer you this critique as a instrument to stimulate debate in ways we all in Volusia County can enhance our environment. By getting involved in protecting our environment and offering possible solutions. It is not an exercise in politician bashing either. As an environmentalist I wish to distance our movement from the often heard cry that environmentalists are always screaming no, no, no to everything involving growth and development. I support sustainable, responsible growth that is in harmony with our environment and leads to a better quality of life here in Volusia. I support our elected representatives in the difficult choice of public service they have chosen. I also pray that they will be blessed with wisdom and courage in the exercise of their mandate.

Thanking you,

Aiden Magee -- Volusia Flagler Environmental Action Committee, Inc.

______________________________________________________________________________________