03/14/2021
Most of the time, when big (and sometimes even very small) projects come to the commission, we tend to receive at least a few uncivil emails from folks concerned about growth. Following the bruising meeting over a low-density rezoning near Snug Harbor and review of a large rental project on Central Parkway, among some of the angry notes, I received an email alleging I must've been paid off by developers and threatening an investigation.
Well, I certainly haven't been paid off. But I didn't need to be paid off or even hold my nose to vote. Central Parkway was a good project for the city, and I stand by my vote. I voted for it because it came in under the density limit of 30 units per acre, and it went well beyond the minimum requirements of code: additional stormwater management, EV charging stations, public on-street parking, larger and denser landscaping, a raised section of Central Parkway with pedestrian-activated crossing lights for safety, and 10% of the units set aside as AMI-adjusted workforce housing in perpetuity (that means they're ACTUALLY affordable relative to our local median incomes, and REQUIRED to be maintained). Yes, there were asks on parking and landscape buffers, which were important considerations, but given the whole project I was willing to accept the takes because of the puts.
Many hear the word "density" and immediately think of Broward, of skyscrapers, of the concrete jungle. I hear a similar sentiment from folks - especially those who've recently moved to Stuart from South Florida, themselves benefitting from new development - that we have to stop it all to protect Stuart. That we are fast approaching Broward.
But we won't become Broward or Palm Beach or Miami-Dade, because our Comp Plan prevents that. We have a conservative height limit and density limit. These rules persist, despite many folks being told these new developments are breaking the rules (they're not).
I understand the outrage some in the area feel when they're told that local governments are approving projects left and right, granting exceptions to the rules. I'd be outraged too if that were the case. But it's not. These dense developments have been approved in areas appropriate for them: along major roadways and near transit alternatives. And none of them have been over four stories or 30 units per acre. And that is precisely why we will not become Broward.
On the flip side, there are plenty of areas in the city where we wouldn't consider a project near 30 units per acre, where smaller buildings and lower density are appropriate. Those guidelines are spelled out in our future land use and zoning.
Within cities - the urban core, where we already have sewer lines and roads and utilities and infrastructure - is where development should occur. It is much less sustainable environmentally and economically to push development beyond the urban fringe. That is sprawl. Florida's water crisis, our environmental crisis, is largely due to unchecked sprawl. The proliferation of low-density residential and the stripmalls that come with, pushing ever further into sensitive undeveloped land and farmland out west, is easier on local politicians because it sparks less local outrage, but it's unsustainable short-term thinking that will leave our great grandchildren suffering the consequences and footing the bill.
Don't just take my word for it. 1000 Friends of Florida is a great organization advocating for environmental protection through smart state-wide planning. Take a moment to read through their very illuminating Florida 2070 report on our precarious future. The runaway growth we need to be most concerned about is sprawl, not infill and redevelopment.
1000 Friends of Florida is a nonprofit, smart-growth advocacy organization. Your donations help us advocate by providing legislative awareness and webinars.
