More Collier Citizen Opinion

• Citizen on the street: What would you do if you won the lottery?
• A New Perspective: Season off to rough start, but there’s hope
• On the Mark: Bailouts may come in many forms

Tell us about it

• What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
• Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
• Upload photos & videos
• More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

Share and Enjoy [?]

Too many times, the motivation that drives our local codes is lost in the process. When it comes to deciding what a written law or code means, the interpretation given by government staff can have an impact worth millions of dollars. Current code amendments that will dictate land uses for decades are being sent forth with incomplete information and statements that intentionally set the stage for passage to those sensitive to innuendo.

To start with, every action by government that takes or controls private land in any manner creates costs that must be paid for by someone. There are situations in the current set of land codes working their way forward that do nothing more than try to legitimize further demands and restrictions on property owners without adequate justification.

In this month’s round of code changes, the utility department is seeking to legitimize “donations” of well sites. What this really means is that if a property owner refuses the “donation” request, their permit application goes into purgatory until they see the light and comply.

The parks and recreation department is seeking similar demands by adding mandatory park sites to new projects under the pretense of meeting an undefined need. They conveniently won’t count the multitude of recreational centers all new developments are already supplying. Even worse, when these new park sites are created, they still are not counted by the department to meet the level of service for parks, so not only do the property owners pay, we as taxpayers, pay again and again.

Similarly, the environmental department is seeking new changes to meet what they consider accurate interpretations on how to protect the environment. Unfortunately, these interpretations are not supported and accomplish nothing more than to saturate the code with ambiguity and confusion, so that a property owner will never know the extent to which his property is being restricted. When the day comes to actually improve your property, you are held in environmental hell until you agree to the department’s version of what the code means, even though it may not be even close to reality.

Setting the stage for a code change usually starts with a report that outlines what the change is about, why it is occurring and what impacts it will have. The public review process for these changes is supposed to weigh the various impacts of each change with its need and then make decisions based on what is best for county residents. One important aspect of this analysis should certainly be the cost each change passes on to either a landowner, final consumer or the taxpayers in general.

The report calls this analysis the “Fiscal and Operational Impacts.”

Fiscal impacts would normally lead one to believe there is a dollar value associated with a change. As a taxpayer, consumer and property owner, I would certainly want to know how much a new law or code is going to cost me. Routinely, the method of defining fiscal impact is: “Increased costs will be incurred upon the applicant,” or “Permit will be required,” and of course, the ultimate implication, “May have a financial affect on applicants who want to maximize development of their site.”

If you justify a code change by insinuating that it will reduce the profits of a greedy developer, what better way to gain approval? There are not many politicians who will want to appear to be favoring developers who “overdevelop” their properties to make a profit. No matter that the code change being made may not have anything to do with maximizing development on a site.

Changes in our codes need to be evaluated fairly on their own merits, with complete fiscal information and without the personal agendas of individual code writers or departments attempting to influence approval through politics.