Making Tea with Smart Growth: The Fall of Statewide Growth Management in Florida

1. Making Tea with Smart Growth: The Fall of Statewide Growth Management in Florida Samuel R. Staley, Ph.D. DeVoe L. Moore Center & Randall G. Holcombe Deparment of Economics Florida State University Presentation Prepared for the Preserving the American Dream annual conference, Washington, DC, October 28, 2013. e. sstaley@fsu.edu

2. The Goal of Statewide Growth Management is to Expand Political Control Over Land Development Politics Economic Social/Cultural 28 October 2013

3. Florida’s Growth Management Struggles Population Growth Congestion Urban infrastructure Environmental degradation Lower housing affordability Solution: Growth Management (1985) 28 October 2013

4. Hallmarks of Florida Growth Management • Started in 1970s; modified in 1985 • Consistency: • top down planning • Compliance with State Plan • Concurrency • Anti-sprawl • Compact development 28 October 2013

5. DCA determinations for Florida’s Submitted Plans 28 October 2013

6. DCA determinations for Florida’s Submitted Plans 28 October 2013

7. Costs of conventional planning • Development approval is lengthy • Substantial upfront costs for entitlement and approval • Housing markets are less dynamic, resilient and innovative • Zoning is largely ineffective and serves to promote existing land uses 28 October 2013

8. The heavy hand of state government planning • Compliance was negotiated • Cities: 2-4 years • Counties: 2 years • DCA evaluated plans based on their ability to advance state goals • Not just compliance • Concurrency prevented new development • Amendments allowed twice per year • Restricted current lands • Limited adding supply of new land 28 October 2013

9. Housing affordability in Florida plummeted through out the 2000s 28 October 2013

10. Effects of state planning on housing prices 28 October 2013

11. Public attention began to focus on these effects • Public resistance • Large land developers • Local elected officials • Property Rights coalitions • Academic research showed the weaknesses of the act • DeVoe Moore Center • James Madison Institute • Initiatives began to fail at the ballot box • Bipartisan resistance to Hometown Democracy 28 October 2013

12. Florida’s Housing Market Collapse 28 October 2013

13. Rick Scott’s Ascendance • Elected in 2010 with strong Tea Party support • Cut spending and taxes • Cut spending for education • Opposed Obamacare • No friend of Smart Growth • Rejected federal spending for high-speed rail • Dismantled the Dept of Community Affairs 28 October 2013

14. Was the dismantling of DCA a Tea Party victory? • Tea Party created a broad base of support for shrinking government • Tea Party as not influential in dismantling DCA • Reform was quick and an inside job • Tea Party was weak in governance • Did not give strategic direction to reform efforts • Tea Party focus was on other, larger issues • Tea Party support was politically necessary but not sufficient for implementation 28 October 2013

15. Critical roles for the Tea Party • Raising awareness • Providing popular political support • Strategic policy focus • Grass roots connection • All of the above were crucial toward creating a political climate that allowed the dismantlement of the DCA 28 October 2013

16. Thank You! Samuel R. Staley, Ph.D. DeVoe L. Moore Center, FSU e. sstaley@fsu.edu www.coss.fsu.edu/dmc 28 October 2013