By Lynne Adams Takacs
Community comprehensive (comp) plans are boring. They’re long, excruciating to read and the perfect place for community-altering decisions to hide in plain sight. The Tallahassee-Leon County Comp Plan is a whopping 252 pages and last year it was used as a vehicle to change the rules so that a development somewhere between the size of Welaunee and Southwood would be allowed next to Lake Jackson. Thankfully, someone was paying attention, word spread, the public engaged and Leon County Commissioners struck it down. But it didn’t end there. Now, the owner is seeking to have even more land than before – 1,741.9 acres to be precise – voluntarily annexed into the City in order to pursue development again.
The City is allowing one meeting for the public to share their concerns on September 9. This Tuesday, July 14, the Leon County Commission will decide if they want to object to the annexation. On the surface, whether the property is annexed seems inconsequential, but that could not be further from the truth. Thanks to yet another change that was included in the comp plan, annexation could trigger a land use change and green light the development automatically.
Since learning about the possibility of this area being developed last September, I’ve spent the last several months researching, calling, emailing and making public records requests in an effort to understand not only how the process works, but the impacts it would have on our community. Unfortunately, the answers to both have been deeply unsettling. Here’s what I’ve learned:
This is not a Subdivision, it’s a Mega Development
Under its current rural designation, the owner is allowed to build one house per ten acres. The land use sought in the comp plan would have allowed up to 20 housing units or up to 20,000 sq ft of commercial space per acre. It’s likely he’ll seek the same density allowances again.
Meridian Road is Just 40 Cars Away from Reaching 100% Capacity
This beautiful, two-lane canopy road was never designed to handle urban-scale development. Yet growth continues at a rapid pace. According to a map created by the Office of Economic Vitality, more than 850 housing units and over 100,000 square feet of commercial space are either under construction or approved to be built within just a couple of miles of Meridian Road.
Adding Road Capacity is an Expensive and a Decades-Long Endeavor
To understand what this could mean for Meridian, one only needs to look to the Bannerman Road project as a cautionary tale. When it became a Blueprint project in 2014, the estimated cost was $33.3 million. Today, the projected price has increased 395% to $165 million and it’s likely to grow more still since the project isn’t expected to be completed until 2035 – some 21 years after it was approved. Yes folks, that’s right. It will be old enough to drink before it’s ready to drive.
While we don’t know the cost to add capacity to Meridian Road, it’s no secret that building in wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas requires expensive solutions. Now add in years of inflation while the public waits for construction, and it’s easy to see how the price could far exceed the cost of the Bannerman Road expansion.
You and I Subsidize the Cost
One of the most startling things I’ve learned in this process is who picks up the tab. If a new development pushes a road beyond its capacity, you might assume the developer pays to widen it. Unfortunately, “you broke it, you bought it” doesn’t apply here. The developer is only required to pay for the additional traffic their project creates—not the full cost of widening the road, even if their development is what made the expansion necessary in the first place.
If that sounds unfair to taxpayers, consider this: Instead of writing a check, developers often meet their obligation by granting the government the right-of-way needed to build or widen the road. And because their property is now worth much more after the government approves higher-density development, their out-of-pocket cost can end up being little or nothing—leaving taxpayers to pay for constructing the road the development made necessary in the first place. Meanwhile, you and I are left paying to build the very road the development made necessary.
In our community, major road construction often becomes a Blueprint project and they consume the lion’s share of the funding. Nearly 60 cents of every Blueprint dollar goes toward just three major roadway projects with a combined price tag of more than half a billion dollars. So how much new or improved roadway does this buy? Less than 15 miles. Yet they’re a big part of the reason Leon County’s sales tax rate is higher than 97% of Florida counties.
It Will Cause Irreparable Harm to the Environment
One of the biggest issues many have with this development is the impact it will have on the environment. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection weighed in on this issue last year and warned that a development in this location will harm not only Lake Jackson Aquatic Preserve, but Wakulla Springs and the Wakulla River. Last November, the City and County’s own joint planning department concluded, “Any expansion of the USA into this area would introduce greater potential for runoff and erosion that could challenge stormwater management systems during construction and compromise long-term water quality objectives for the Lake Jackson Basin.”
We Deserve Better, Tallahassee
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think people in our community that struggle to put food on their table should be subsidizing wealthy developers. I also believe that decisions that have as far-reaching impacts as this one deserves a more thoughtful review. If you agree that our community deserves better, I urge you to take action and contact the Leon County Commission before July 14 and ask them to choose staff recommendation 1 on Agenda Item 20 and object to the annexation of 1742 acres near Lake Jackson. Please also contact City Commissioners and ask them to vote no on annexation before September 9.
To learn more about this issue, including why annexation is more than a jurisdictional change, the impacts and see the sources, please visit BeforeWeBuildTLH.org.
Take a Deeper Dive: How Annexation Can Greenlight Development
One of the changes made to our community comp plan is a rule that land inside the City, which also falls within the Urban Services Area (USA), cannot be designated as Rural. On its face, it makes sense, but in practice, it means annexation can require a change in land use designation, opening the door to significantly higher development densities. Once development rights (like density allowances) are granted, they are considered an entitlement which Florida law makes nearly impossible to walk back.
If the property in annexed into the City, the only question that remains is if the property is located within the USA. In Item 20 of the County Commission’s July 14 agenda packet, the County Attorney says it is not. However, at the June 10 City Commission Meeting, Commissioner Porter asked that question directly, and the Assistant City Manager twice assured her that it was. The conflicting answers appear to come down to how much of the property must be within the USA to qualify.
Some of the additional acreage included in the voluntary annexation petition does fall within the USA, but the comp plan is silent on whether the entire property must be included to qualify. If the City’s interpretation is applied, annexation could eliminate the Rural designation as an option, opening the door to a higher-density land use designation. Ordinarily, a decision of this magnitude would require a separate public hearing and a vote by elected officials. However, in this case, that would no longer apply. The decision on whether to make a land use change would disappear and be replaced instead by which higher-density designation it should receive.
Links to the policy in the comp plan, the County attorney’s statement, the exchange between Commissioner Porter and the Assistant Attorney and the video and timestamp of the June 10 City Meeting can be accessed in the section “Can Property Be Designated Rural within the Urban Services Area?” found here.
This statement begins with comments about the Comp Plan, what we’re so often told is the “Constitution for Land Use” in Leon County. Likewise, justification for approval of many proposed controversial developments has been based on “consistency with the Comp Plan”, or so claim developers and City/County staff. Burdens of proof fall on those who oppose the developments; this requires clear understanding of the Comp Plan.
This statement notes that comp plans are “boring…long, excruciating to read…place for community-altering decisions to hide in plain sight….The Tallahassee-Leon County Comp Plan … used as a vehicle to change the rules”. The Tallahassee-Leon County Comp Plan is highly ambiguous and reads well to those of us who care about environmental protection. Its introductory statement includes: “Purpose of the comp plan is to preserve, protect and enhance the quality of life for all citizens…The natural environment is one of many criteria which form the community’s perceived quality of life and is a major component in the quality of life equation. As such, it must be protected… Intent of this Plan is to include strong environmental objectives and policies. The residential environment is also one of many criteria for the community’s perceived quality of life and must be protected. Unwise land use decisions and premature non-residential development in established residential areas can seriously alter the character of a neighborhood. Not only actual changes, but also the perception of a constant assault on a neighborhood undermines an otherwise desirable residential environment.” (Introduction, p. v)
What initially reads well and leads readers to assume any proposed developments found to be consistent with the Comp Plan will not adversely impact quality-of-life or environmental amenities is, upon further examination, highly subjective. What constitutes community’s perceived quality of life depends on who’s in the community of concern. What may serve the interests of some may not serve the interests of others. Whose interests are to be counted and what weight is to be allocated to the interests of each member of the community are key. Equations may be mathematical and, as such, objective, but factors to consider and to what extent are highly subjective. “Fuzzy math” is so often applied in policymaking. I would have assumed that certain recently approved highly controversial proposed developments (including a Circle K gas station in Canopy development as well as Velda Dairy/Thomasville RD adjacent to St Ives) would never have come close to approval. Yet, they were readily found to be consistent with the Comp Plan.
Crucial question to consider: what is the ultimate purpose of the Comp Plan? If it were environmental protection, I find it hard to believe that any of these proposed developments or a development somewhere between the size of Welaunee and Southwood next to Lake Jackson would even be considered for approval. Might the ultimate purpose of the Comp Plan, in fact, be to make it easier for these and other environmentally questionable developments to get through the process and be approved. So many of us were led to believe consistency with the Comp Plan entails environmental protection and prevents environmental loss or destruction. Yet, as we’ve seen, the Comp Plan has often been used as a tool to justify environmentally destructive development.
County Comp Plans are required by State mandate, a State which has heavily promoted growth and development. Don’t kid yourselves; Comp Plans are in no way intended to prevent development and further environmental impact. They’ve effectively been used as a tool to deceive environmentally concerned parties into believing the system or status quo can be trusted. Like so many other endeavors, it takes time for the public to realize that adopted policies and provisions aren’t close to what they’re hyped up to be.