The Incredibly High Cost of an Arbitrary "NO".......

Sometimes citizens demand we say NO MORE [fill in the blank] when in actuality it is something that our codes and ordinances permit.  When we say NO to what should be a YES---there often will be a high price to be paid for doing so....as illustrated below.

We make decisions that make people mad.  We make them at nearly every meeting.

Sometimes, there are no easy answers.  One thing that is universally understood is this:  You can never please all the people, all the time.  Nobody can.

So issues come before us that are challenging and there are typically competing interests at stake.  Most of the time we are up against a tough vote, it usually centers on a land use decision the board must make.

So when confronted with doing what appears to be appropriate, what comports with our current land development code, what has been approved by the state, and what has been approved by the planning board and county staff--there really are no options for us to take if we want to be efficient, decisive, follow the law, and be fair to all parties.  We should vote yes when it is obviously a YES decision given all the facts.

But that does not always happen--and there are not always happy endings.

Often there will be an active and vocal minority of citizens present to oppose doing what is proposed, what is right and what comports with the law.  Sometimes these loud voices of an extreme minority opinion can push a vote down the road, delay a project, send it back to the planning board, etc.  Cans can get kicked for months and months--costing petitioners money and time.

Sometimes there's no rational reasoning for the push for a NO.  Often it comes from groups that want no changes in their neighborhoods, or no new growth, or no "XXXX" type of business near them [Fill in the blank].

Sometimes, these voices push so hard that a project that should, by every measure conceivable, be a resounding "YES" turns into a "NO" to mollify a loud and vocally opposed constituency.  So what appears to be a politically expedient, "for the people" decision to say no to something that should have warranted a yes will have consequences, because there is an incredibly high cost of an arbitrary "NO".  Or to put a scientific spin on it-we can channel Isaac Newton--"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Take for instance the NO vote that was rendered for a legitimate business operation in Escambia County a couple of years back.  The BCC said no for reasons that could not withstand actual legal scrutiny, and the requestor hired an attorney.  He then proceeded to clean our clocks in circuit court where the judge took the highly unusual step in her decision of not simply siding with the plaintiff--but  actually "ordering" the BCC to issue the permit we had previously denied this individual petitioner.

Now, after getting destroyed in court with that ruling--apparently we are still not doing what was ordered by the judge with respect to the permit---and we are about to get pilloried again. (Picture the most vicious, brutal "ground and pound" UFC cagematch beatdown you can imagine......us on the bottom)

Add to this the fact that we have not yet received all of the legal bills and lost revenue claims that we will be paying from the first go round with this individual because we said "no."

Now, unfortunately, it looks like that meter will continue to run; in a letter received this week, a new issue with the judgment and the county's reaction illuminated the fact that the bill is being drawn up and it will soon be coming to us (taxpayers) for payment--complete with new fees if we don't issue the correct permit expeditiously.  from the letter:

"If the permit correction is not made, we will have no choice but to recommend seeking further judicial enforcement of the proper classification of my client's permit. If the County is unwilling to comply with its own code, we will be forced to take legal action to enforce my client's rights, including but not limited to a declaratory action seeking a declaration that the permit issued to my client properly falls under the XXXXXXXXXX classification XXXXXXXXX.

In addition, I note that we already have a substantial damages claim for the delay in the initial permit, to which entitlement exists as a matter of law, caused by the County's previous denial of due process. Further, attempts to deny my client the permit to which they are entitled are added due process violations compounding those violations which have already been adjudicated against the County. The already existing damages and their substantiation are forthcoming and will be submitted for the County's review and payment shortly. Failure to correct the permit at this point will add to those recoverable damages."

DEO to Escambia Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment: "No Comment"

The county received the below correspondence from the Department of Economic Opportunity regarding our comprehensive plan amendment--and I am told by relevant staff this means the county is proceeding correctly and there are no issues with what was submitted.  This, however, does not stop citizens from taking further exception with plan amendments in the circuit court, however.  From the state:

"Please see attached correspondence from the Department of Economic Opportunity regarding the above comprehensive plan amendment.  In addition to this electronic message, a paper copy of the letter is being mailed to the addressee.  Paper copies of the attached correspondence are available upon request.  Please contact the Department planner identified in the attached letter if you have any questions or concerns.  Thank You"       

              

                 

Escambia County Wins DOAH Appeal!

This land use battle went back and forth like Forest Gump playing ping pong.....costing private citizens' time, legal fees, county staff time, and all kinds of time at BCC meetings.......

County attorney Alison Rogers and her staff are to be commended. 

They achieved a very nice win  yesterday that ends---unequivocally, unambiguously, once and for all-and rather unceremoniously- a long running and expanding land use argument that essentially began with a disagreement between the county, one citizen, and one property owner that has bounced back and forth at meetings and online like Forest Gump's ping pong balls. (was that a run-on sentence?)

But now all of that is over.   finally. finito!

The county was right and the pro se petitioner in this case was wrong, it's really pretty basic and that's the way this ends..

From the order:

"Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the MU-S FLU category's primary focus is on a mix of uses in a suburban area. See Findings of Fact Nos. 6-8, above.      Indeed, the FLU element of the Comp Plan expresses a purpose and intent to encourage mixed- use development..Also, the Petitioner's focus on the differences between the MU-S and Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) FLU categories in the Comp Plan was misplaced. The premise that the HC/LI zoning district implements the MU-U FLU category better than it implements the MU-S FLU category was not the issue to be determined in this proceeding.   Rather, it was whether the Ordinance, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance, amending the HC/LI zoning district in the LDC is consistent with the Comp Plan..All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected...Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

ORDERED that the Ordinance, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance, amending the HC/LI zoning district in the County LDC, is consistent with the 2030 County Comp Plan."

Read the ORDER HERE

Doing the Master Planning the Right Way....

I'm looking forward to having our first meeting of the Northwest District 1 Advisory Committee on Monday, September 10^th.

  

After the organizational meeting and a brief tutorial on the Sunshine Law—I look forward to having this group work together with the community to assist with organizing a Master Plan for the Northwest Portion of District 1 (Precincts 43, 5, and 68 as indicated above).

This area of District 1 is the fastest growing—and with this growth has come pain. 

Our infrastructure is catching up, but currently it is inadequate and this is problematic. 

But the 9-Mile road 4-Lane project will be completed next year, safety enhancements are being made at the intersection of Mobile Highway at Beulah Road, and we are working toward the interchange with I-10 at Beulah road to alleviate traffic congestion for Beulah. 

Other projects at Wilde Lake, Klondike, and 8-Mile Creek are being planned.

A library is coming and the Beulah fire station will be renovated, modernized, and appropriately equipped.  It all takes time, it takes patience, it takes persistence, and it takes money.

Meanwhile, a group of citizens has already begun the Master Planning information gathering for a big portion of this study area.  I’ll encourage the newly formed Northwest D1 advisory committee to take this previously-compiled information into account as they move forward.  We welcome this input!

We will plan this area the right way, with citizen input, and with a professional firm, and taking all information into account before the final plan is voted upon by the full BCC.

A large part of this is that we’ll be sure to identify and account for areas of county-owned land that already have planned uses—we can’t NOT do this.  And for areas where such county-driven development will occur—we will ensure that the Master Plan meshes with whatever the various final disposition (s) of such planned land uses will be. 

Specifically—this Master Plan – as we begin it at the 50,000-foot level-- will have multiple variations that will mesh with whatever is eventually planned and constructed at OLF 8—because ultimately the BCC and nobody else will vote on the future use of this county-owned property.  And this property, OLF 8, will have an independent master plan conducted on its footprint apart from the master plan that will be developed for the entire NW District 1 area. 

  

So initially, the area-wide master plan will account for any one of the following as it pertains to the eventual development of OLF-8:  A commerce park, a mixed use residential/commercial development, residential and park, or open field.  It will be planned so as to mesh with any one of the above final uses for OLF 8. 

This is doing this plan the right way…no “planning” our way out of the ability to use a piece of property acquired by the county for a use intended by the county.  Sounds crazy—but this just happened in District 2 when leadership there lacked discipline to fully flesh this out and lost focus badly..... 

Exhibit "A"-- the current fiasco with Perdido Key:  a parcel of land was acquired for habitat conservation and public beach access, but a subsequently approved “master plan” did not take this property into account and subsequently under the “master plan” that was approved--- this public beach access at this location is now being deemed as “not optimal.”  And that taxpayer-purchased property just sits there unused by the taxpayers that bought it.  What a monumental failure of leadership that was.

Or imagine this one:  What if Escambia citizens near where the county landfill is located got together