Land Development Code – Another Example of the Law of Unintended Consequences
Things done with good intentions sometimes have bad results. Nobody proves this better than the government.
July 19, 2007 –
-
Increased setbacks – Buildings shouldn’t be too close to property lines.
-
Increased buffers and plantings – Who can be against trees?
-
Increased minimum road width – We won’t have to drive so close to the center line.
-
Wider parking spaces – It will be easier to park.
-
Decreasing the percentage of a parcel that can be covered by buildings and paving.
-
Street lights required on all public streets.
-
And more…….
- Their property taxes will rise to pay for the increased cost of maintaining wider roads and lighting more streets.
- Their property taxes will rise because commercial and industrial development will be severely restricted, continuing the present trend of relying solely on the residential sector for tax revenue.
- Palm Coast will not have the retail stores, services, and restaurants people have been crying for.
- The rise in residential property taxes will inhibit the residential growth that has been funding the city’s growing budget.
- Sufficient affordable housing will be unavailable.
These are all unintended consequences, but they will happen. Another unintended consequence is that the new code, by greatly restricting development rights, will substantially devalue a lot of property. The 1995 Florida Legislature enacted the "Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act." The act provides in part that when a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner of that real property is entitled to relief that may include compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the property caused by the action of government, as provided in the statute. This cause of action is separate and distinct from any cause of action that might arise under the law of takings. The new LDC, as drafted, will beg Bert Harris suits with the resulting financial burden to plaintiffs and the city as defendant.
Along these lines, a defining example of government starting out with good intentions but ending up with mud on its face is “Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council.” I know this case well since I lived only a block away at the time.
In 1986, David Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential oceanfront lots in Wild Dunes, located on a barrier island just north of
Saddled with the cost of owning two worthless oceanfront properties, the state changed its restriction, allowing them to sell the lots. Two multi-million dollar houses now occupy these worthless lots. (See Map) And that’s the rest of the story.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!