The Dream Commission Can’t Say No

The “Dream Commission” is at it again.

Robin Cartwright and her attorney, Richard Grosso are asking Stuart Commissioners to schedule meetings to discuss a settlement of the Costco lawsuit. Cartwright has filed a Notice of Appeal of the Governor’s Cabinet decision in the Fourth District Court of Appeal. This is regarding the city winning the Costco development in an administrative hearing brought by Cartwright. Several of the “Dream Commissioners” have said yes to those individual meetings. In fact, as I write this, a meeting may be underway with one of them.

Here is the problem with any settlement that may be under discussion. The entire appeal from start to finish is on the land use that was assigned. The settlement that Cartwright and her attorney are talking about pertains to changing the approved site plan. In Cartwright’s original appeal to an administrative proceeding, the site plan was never challenged. Therefore, it is not and cannot be part of the current proceedings.

That ship has sailed! The property owner has his site plan approval which was granted by the commission. It would not be possible for the commission to vote to rescind an approval already given. Cartwright’s desire, in a nutshell, is to screw due process and property rights.

How long would it be before the property owner would sue the city for millions of dollars? Perhaps our “Dream Commission” doesn’t care. It isn’t their money. It is the taxpayer’s money, but the “Dream Commission” seems to have a Marie Antoinette “let the little people eat cake” philosophy.

The developer may actually prefer not to have the current UPUD designation now that the state has enacted the Live Local Act. Because if a different designation is assigned, he could build a thousand or more apartments on the site instead of a measly 370. If the UPUD designation falls, there are many denser uses the property could apply for and be granted administratively, no public hearings required. The current project is something most rational people will find appealing…the other alternatives not so much.

If Ms. Cartwright wants a win, then it should be through the courts. She had a preliminary victory by an administrative judge that clearly misinterpreted the law and city codes. The city needs to do nothing but defend an appeal if Cartwright does indeed file a brief. For her to do that, it will require money for attorneys, and I am betting she doesn’t have it.

I would also argue that the commission doesn’t have the right to deny the site plan that they already approved at this stage. If Cartwright files and actually prevails in her appeal, then the land use designation goes away, and the site plan granted under the UPUD designation does also. That is when the commission will be forced to give a different land use with all the other problems associated with that decision including greater density.

What the “Dream Commission” can’t do is yank the present approved site plan. Therefore, no compromise can be instituted. The property owner if he was absolutely crazy, could participate in these negotiations, but what for? He is sitting in the cat bird seat.

Like many other states such as California and New York, Florida has decided to do something about building needed housing. Throughout the country, local governments have used zoning and land use regulations to discourage anything but single-family housing. We complain about the lack of housing, and then get in the way of housing being built. Land is a finite resource….no more of it can be created. Increasing density is the only way to provide additional housing stock.

Unlike local government, the state can’t ignore these facts. I have often complained about preemption. Yet at some point, if Stuart and other local governments refuse to provide opportunities to build housing, then they should be preempted. The question that state legislators are asking is whether local government understands what needs to be done or are there more Live Local Laws needed?