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

 and did a “Master Plan” discouraging expansion of the landfill and “allowing” only residential construction on property the County already owned and earmarked for necessary landfill expansion?  Would that make sense?  Would that fly?

Or how about this:  After the jail blew up—what if nearby residents there did a “master plan” that encouraged new residential development, affordable housing, a jobs skill training facility, and a school (but specified that no correctional facilities be allowed) right in the area where the county purchased land (at a premium) to construct the replacement jail facility?  Would this make sense?

Of course not-- it’s ridiculous and it makes no sense.  We will get it right with this plan in District 1 because we will maintain focus and discipline. 

We understand that circumstances change and a great plan needs the ability to be flexible (real leaders in business and the military know this--the best laid plans rarely survive first contact with hostile adversaries or unfavorable circumstances--thus the need to remain focused and disciplined--not rigid and inflexible.)  So yes--it was refreshing to hear one of the candidates at a recent rally rationally, intelligently, and adroitly mentioning the need to be flexible and nimble with planning. 

Intelligent leaders that know how to maintain discipline and focus understand the OODA loop--constantly adapting to the changing circumstances. 

This is how we will plan in D1: Intelligently-with focus, discipline, and flexibility where needed.

This means all current and previously approved uses must be considered as we move forward—particularly as it pertains to county owned land.  

Otherwise, we'll invite litigation, we'd be acting against ourselves and  working at cross-purposes.  

This would not be, and is not, good “master planning”—this would be (as my late father would say) 

“Piss-poor” planning.

We’re going to do it the right way here in District 1.  Just watch and see.