What's with mayor wannabes and growth?

Jane Healy, Feet to the Fire

February 14, 2010

Candidates Bill Segal, Mildred Fernandez, Teresa Jacobs and Matthew Falconer say they oppose the amendment that's headed to the fall ballot. Only Linda Stewart favors it. The amendment would give voters veto power if elected officials ignore their own plans for growth. For instance, if they approve a megadevelopment in an area that is designated rural, voters could stop it.

It's not surprising that the amendment garnered enough signatures to get on the ballot, is it? All voters have to do is look around and see the traffic jams and crowded schools that are caused by these unplanned developments, often approved just to please campaign-contributing developers. The result, of course, is these same commissioners getting re-elected to do the same thing all over again. Sigh.

For his part, Segal, who has already raised half a million dollars for the fall mayor's race, cites the lack of support from two interest groups as a reason for opposing it.

Huh? When exactly is Segal going to start thinking for himself? Not only is he a developer by trade, he's been on the commission for almost six years. Does he not know enough about growth by now? Apparently not.

He says he is troubled by the fact that the environmental groups — 1000 Friends of Florida and Audubon of Florida — don't support the amendment.

But surely Segal realizes that he needs to dig a little deeper. For one thing, members of some individual Audubon chapters around the state are actively supporting it, and 1000 Friends will be making it clear that it could change its stand if the Legislature falls all over itself once again to please developers.

Plus, who knows the motivation of individual board members who weigh in on such stands? One view is that the amendment is actually too weak because the Legislature could undermine it.

As for Jacobs, a former county commissioner who showed strong leadership on issues like this, she just might be in the wrong party. Jacobs, a Republican, needs to catch up on campaign contributions. Even though the mayor's position is nonpartisan, the candidates turn to their own parties for much of their support. Republicans often are part of the same business community that opposes Amendment 4. And some Democrats who back the amendment might not want to contribute to any Republicans. It's a tough spot for her.

Question No. 2: How then will these candidates prove they are responsible about growth?

Several huge developments are headed toward the commission, and the candidates have indicated little interest in supporting them. But what then? Are they willing to impose a permanent ban on extending urban development into the rural areas? Orange County has already approved almost 94,000 residences and 119million square feet of commercial space that hasn't even been built yet. Besides that, there are thousands of other acres designated for development under the current plan.

So, under what circumstances would these candidates approve a change in the growth plan? Something that a campaign contributor wants, perhaps? Remember, many of these changes increase the value of the land, making them lucrative for the developer.

Or is there something else they might propose? Requiring a super-majority commission vote, as Falconer proposes, might not change anything.

But is there something else that would? In the 1990s, then-Mayor Mel Martinez blocked rezonings where schools were crowded.

Are any of these candidates willing to come up with something so bold? We'll see.

You can contact Jane Healy at janehealy49@gmail.com. She'd like to hear about public officials who need their feet kept to the fire.