Laserfiche WebLink
Most of the civilized earth is turning to a market oriented, <br />free enterprised economy. Land must be used at its highest and best <br />use. Central planning with armies of enforcers is not the way to go. <br />The Growth Management Plan will result in more homeless people, <br />higher cost housing, increasing unemployment, and less tax base. <br />Concurrency will require present taxpayers to pay for an <br />infrastructure that will be used through most of the 21st century. <br />There is nothing wrong with allowing residents in the next century to <br />help pay for these improvements. <br />The basic legislation setting up the Growth Management Plan and <br />the Regional Planning Councils is flawed. <br />It designates representatives from other counties to decide the <br />development of its neighbors. This puts these people in a position of <br />conflict of interest. It disenfranchises the citizens of a county by <br />having their fate decided by representatives elected by another county. <br />It strips county officials of power to determine the type of <br />county that their citizens wish to have. For example, Okeechobee and <br />Palm Beach counties are different and should be allowed to keep their <br />local character. <br />The Regional Planning Councils have the power to dictate what <br />must be done but they do not provide the financing. The infrastructure <br />cannot be put in before the people get here because it will bankrupt <br />both developers and local governments as in 1926 when local governments <br />collapsed due to bonded debt, and people would not come to Florida and <br />be encumbered by the debt. <br />Florida has a proven system of government that is workable and <br />responsive. The Regional Planning Councils have added an unneeded <br />layer of government that has not controlled growth and has done little <br />significant planning. They are an unnecessary burden to a state that <br />needs the money for schools and highways. <br />Mr. Bournique referred the Board to the following letter <br />from Bernard Egan, President of the Indian River Citrus League <br />opposing the 25% upland rule and the proposed densities for <br />agricultural land: <br />40 <br />