Tag Archives: Urban Growth Boundaries

A unanimous Declaration of Planning Independence


A unanimous Declaration of Planning Independence

When in the Course of urban events, it becomes necessary for a people to overthrow the tired paradigm which has guided city building for too long, and to assume a new model of urban growth and renewal for our cities on this earth, the distinct and equal status to which the Laws of Common Sense and of Common Sense’s Spirit entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to revolution.

We hold these truths to be proven fact, that all cities are created of space, that space is a living thing, which is endowed by human Design with certain indeniable attributes, that among these are Movement, Transaction, and the pursuit of Interaction. That to secure these attributes, Urban Designers and Planners are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Beingness of the City, that whenever any paradigm becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Paradigm, laying its foundation on such common sense and organizing its principles in such form, as to them shall to most likely perpetuate the vitality and sustainability of the City.

Scientific method, indeed, will dictate that a Paradigm long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Its evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by overthrowing a Paradigm to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and corruptions, pursuing invariably the same Object manifests a Design to reduce them under absolute Lunacy, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Paradigm, and to provide a new model for the future of the city.

Such has been the patient sufferance of our cities; and such is now the necessity that constrains us to overthrow our current System of City Building. The history of the current Paradigm is a history of repeated injuries and corruptions, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute Lunacy over our cities. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

It has refused to Assent to the wisdom of good Design, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good, found common over 10,000 years of city building.

It has passed Laws and Regulations contrary to the common wisdom of good Design over 10,000 years of city building, refused to reform or suspend such Laws and Regulations when proven fallacious, or lest utterly neglected to attend to them for the public good.

It has refused to pass other Laws and Regulations for the accommodation of good Design, unless the People relinquish the right of sound Planning, a relation inestimable to City Building and formidable to Lunacy only.

It has conspired to call together Professionals at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from Public view, for the sole purposes of corrupting and fatiguing the City into compliance with Its measures.

It has dissolved Common Sense repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness Its invasions on the vital humanism of the City.

It has conspired for a long time, after such dissolutions, to promote mediocre Professionals; whereby the Paradigm, incapable of Annihilation, have been applied to Cities at large without recourse nor correction; the City remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers from without, and convulsions within.

It has endeavored to prevent the good Design of these cities; for that purpose of obstructing the Common Sense building of the City; refusing to pass Laws and Regulations to encourage good Design, and raising the conditions for the Misappropriation of Lands and Social Isolation of Populations.

It has obstructed the Administration of Space for pedestrians, by promoting its Assent to Laws for accommodating the Automobile.

It has made the People dependent on the Automobile alone, for the movement, transaction and interaction of their everyday activities, and increased the time and cost of their livelihood in Urban conditions.

It has erected a multitude of New Laws and Regulations, and sent hither swarms of Attorneys to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

It has kept among us Allocations for Parking designed solely for a handful days of Christmas shopping without regard for times or amount of use in the rest of the Year.

It has affected to render the desires of Professionals independent of and superior to the Civic good.

It has combined with other Paradigms to subject cities to a jurisdiction foreign to their humanistic constitution, and unacknowledged by Common Sense; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended logic.

For Quartering large bodies of automobiles on our roads: For protecting them, by idiotic regulations, from retardation for any Murders which they have commit on Pedestrians and Bicyclists in our Cities:

For isolating our urban centers from all parts of their Periphery:

For imposing Fees and Taxes on us without benefit to the Civic good:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Choice in our housing types:

For placing the transportation of Automobiles above the Humanity of living:

For abolishing diversity in Our Cities for the sake of suburban conformity, establishing therein an Arbitrary lifestyle, and enlarging its Model so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute Lunacy in our Cities:

For destroying our Street Life, abolishing its most valuable Character, and altering fundamentally the spatial Function of Our Cities:

For suspending Common Sense urbanism, and declaring itself invested with the power to Build Suburbs for us in all cases whatsoever:

It has abdicated Common Sense here, by declaring us inconsequential to City Building and waging War against traditional urbanism:

It has plundered our lands, destroyed the Social Contract between the City and its Citizens, promoted social isolation, and destroyed the fabric of our neighborhoods.

It is at this time renewing efforts to sprawl large suburban communities of suspect Value to complete the works of isolation, desolation and lunacy, already begun with circumstances of Euclidean zoning and deceits of transportation engineering and planning scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy as a model of City Building lest the Death of the City is its aim.

It has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive in a web of bureaucratic incompetence in all agencies against their Cities, to become the executioners of Urban Vitality and Sustainability, or to fail by their Hands.

It has excited domestic special interests against the City, and has endeavored to bring on the Death of our Cities at the hands of faceless suburban sprawl, whose known rule of assimilation is an undistinguished conformity of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms:

Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

A Paradigm whose character is thus marked by every act which may define Lunacy, is unfit to be a model for Great Cities.

Nor have Urban Designers and Planners been wanting in attentions to our plight. They have been warned from time to time of attempts by their Paradigm to extend its unwarrantable reign over our Cities. Urban Designers and Planners have been reminded of the flaws of their Paradigm, and they have been conjured by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these corruptions, which, would inevitably spurn revolution. Urban Designers and Planners too have been deaf to the voice of Common Sense and Accepted Wisdom. Urban Designers and Planners must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces their Guilt, and hold them, Responsible as Accomplices in this paradigmatic injustice against Our Cities.

We, therefore, The Outlaw Urbanist, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the our Ancestral history and the wisdom of Master Builders for the righteousness of our cause, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of our Cities, solemnly publish and declare, that Our Cities are, and of Right ought to be Free of the Prevailing Paradigm; that we are Absolved from All Allegiance to the Prevailing Paradigm; and that all political and moral connection between It and City Building is and ought to be totally overthrown; and that as Free and Independent Thinkers, we have full Power to build traditional cities, foster movement, transaction and social interaction in Cities made of Space, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Thinkers may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of Common Sense in the Human Spirit, we pledge each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This article appears in Major, M.D. (2012) Poor Richard, An Almanac for Architects and Planners (Volume 1 with Foreword by Julia Starr Sanford). Jacksonville, Florida: Forum Books, ISBN-10: 1482659379, ISBN-13: 978-1482659375, ASIN: B00Q1V5VLK. Available for purchase on this page.

Share the knowledge!

Amendment 4 Commercial Script

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This is the final script for an online political ad in support of Florida Hometown Democracy (Amendment 4) during the November 2010 elections. I have no idea if the ad was ever finished or aired.

Amendment 4 Commercial Script
by Mark David Major, AICP

Hello! My name is Mark David Major. I’m a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and I’ve lived – and worked – in Florida for nearly a decade now. Over the last decade, as Senior Planner for Nassau County, a planner for one of the largest home builders in the state, and a small business owner, I have worked on both sides of the table on growth and development issues in Florida; ALWAYS based on the principle my primary ethical obligation is to the public good, and to speak clearly and honestly about growth issues to the public, my employers, and my clients.

I want to talk to you today about why I’m supporting Amendment 4, or “Florida Hometown Democracy”, and why I’m urging you to vote YES on Amendment this November 2nd. During my time in Florida, it has become abundantly clear to me how we manage growth and development in our state simply does not work. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Even those who opposed Amendment 4, openly admit it does not work. And you don’t have to take their word for it either.

Over the past 2 years, Floridians from all walks of life have experienced first-hand the catastrophic effects of our real estate market being Ground Zero for a Global Recession that has led to 1 out of every 5 Americans being out of work. Banks have foreclosed on homes at a rate not seen in this country since the Great Depression. There are record numbers of people filing for bankruptcy. The scale of personal debt defies description and the scale of government debt is beyond comprehension. The decline in the value of our homes has been massive. And it has all been a direct result of the way we’ve planned, grown, developed and built our communities, neighborhoods, and homes over the last 30 years. It is not an accident the areas of Florida hardest hit by home devaluation during this Great Recession has been those characterized by unsustainable, energy-inefficient, suburban sprawl neighborhoods. That’s because when the housing bubble burst, the bill for reckless growth finally came due.

So what’s the solution? Amendment 4 proposes to give voters a voice in how their neighborhoods, towns, and communities grow and develop. But even more importantly, approval of Amendment 4 will cause businesses and developers to make smarter decisions about what land they buy and develop long before the public becomes ever involved, leading to better and smarter projects. Instead of being driven but what is the cheapest land to develop, developers will have to decide what is the best land to develop. This will lead to smarter growth in Florida.

Now the opponents of Amendment 4 have a clear political strategy to try to defeat this ballot measure: to confuse the issue and try to scare you. They are saying approval of Amendment 4 will cause Florida to lose jobs but we’ve already lost tens of thousands of jobs. They are saying approval of Amendment 4 will cost Florida’s economy billions of dollars but our economy has already lost billions of the dollars. They say approval of Amendment 4 hand power over to special interest lawyers but our dysfunctional system is already dominated by special interest lawyers lobbying on behalf of landowners and developers. They say approval of Amendment 4 will mean higher property taxes but that’s only because our homes have lost so much of their value due to their reckless development practices.  The opponents of Amendment 4 want cheap land because they are poised, even eager, to make the same mistakes all over again because they know how to exploit cheap land and leave you the bill for the next time the bubble bursts. It’s ironic, on one hand, the opponents of Amendment 4 are trying to confuse you into believing approval of Amendment will not really change anything and, on the other hand, they are trying to scare you into believing the solution to our current problems is more of the same. Do you really want more of the same?

Americans built this country by being explorers and pioneers; by dreaming of a better tomorrow and then daring to make it a reality. I urge you to do the same by voting YES on Amendment 4 this November 2nd and daring to dream today of a better Florida, a smarter Florida for you and your family tomorrow.

Share the knowledge!

For Florida Hometown Democracy

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This is a guest editorial in support of Florida Hometown Democracy originally published in October 2010 on the online magazine, Metro Jacksonville.

by Mark David Major, AICP

Voting Yes for Amendment 4 this November 2nd is a vote for a better, smarter Florida. Our real estate and development industry is a dinosaur; equally dull in its collective wisdom and just as extinct. Over the last 25+ years, our real estate development industry has been driven by one arrogant and fatal assumption: this is what makes us the most money, therefore, this is what the people really want. It’s akin to offering a man dying of thirst in the desert a shot of bourbon to forget his troubles (“oh, and here’s a Golden Calf to help you pray for help”). The dying man wants… needs water. But the profit margins on bourbon and golden calves meet the quarterly profit projections of Wall Street. Now Amendment 4 comes before the voters this November 2nd to offer water in the desert. Predictably, the entrenched, moneyed interests in Tallahassee and town halls across the state have risen in opposition to Amendment 4. In the wilderness of the desert, they proclaim, “Don’t drink the water! Water has a 100% mortality rate! Anybody who has ever tasted water has died!” But the voters know better. Amendment 4 proposes to make amendments to local comprehensive plans subject to voter approval. And this will lead to real change in how Florida develops and grows, for better and smarter development, in the future. Once the inevitable economic recovery appears, our real estate and development businesses will still make money (a lot of money, in fact). But the “this is the way we’ve always done it” business models they have relied for the last 25+ years will have to adapt when the voters approve Amendment 4 this November 2nd. Americans are optimists. We believe a vote can change our world. In 2006 and 2008, we voted to change direction after the Republican Party betrayed its core principles. Now, in 2010, we are once again preparing to vote for unprecedented change after the disappointment of the last 2 years. The media pundits and talking heads are pontificating about “the angry voter”, as represented by the enthusiasm of the Tea Party movement. But people don’t get angry and enthusiastically go out to vote unless they are optimists. The optimist votes because we still believe our vote matters and we can change things for the better. We stubbornly cling to our optimism despite being bombarded by the ‘conventional wisdom’ of cynics who prey on the fear we can never change a corrupt system dominated by moneyed interests, lobbyists and entitled self-serving incumbents (of both parties). I urge you to exercise your optimism by voting Yes on Amendment 4 this November 2nd for a better and smarter Florida.

Mark Major, AICP was the Chair of the First Coast Section, Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association from 2005-2008.

Share the knowledge!

Florida Hometown Democracy | Why I’m Supporting Amendment 4

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This is the extended version of an article that originally appeared in the Summer 2010 issue of Florida Planning, the quarterly newsletter of the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association, the March-April 2010 issue of First Coast Planner, the bi-monthly newsletter of the First Coast Chapter of APA Florida, and the May 25-31 Backpage Editorial of Folio Weekly in Jacksonville, Florida.

Florida Hometown Democracy | Why I’m Supporting Amendment 4 by Mark David Major, AICP

I will be supporting Amendment 4 this November. I have arrived at this decision after much contemplation about what it might mean for this state and my profession, after hearing from and reading what others have to say, and after debating and discussing with friends and colleagues what it might mean for them and their families, their neighborhoods and cities, their businesses and employers, and their careers. Literally, this decision was years in the making. I have decided to support Amendment 4 despite my reservations. What are they? First, I am a strong believer in the republican principles of government established by our Founding Fathers; that is, republican with a small ‘r’. Popular referenda are tools of popular democracy, what Thomas Jefferson considered little better than mob rule. And as John Adams said, “Mobs will never do to govern states or command armies.” Second, spending mandates approved by popular referenda in the State of California have clearly been a disaster, bringing that state to the brink of bankruptcy. Increased use of popular referenda in Florida carries the same risk. So, it is my position popular referenda should not be used to establish public policy. By definition, this should lead me to be against Amendment 4 on principle alone. But I will be supporting Amendment 4 this November.

Why? When it comes to politics and public policy, I am a firm believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences.

1. Florida Hometown Democracy will impose “de facto” Urban Growth Boundaries

Approval of Amendment 4 will essentially ‘freeze’ the Future Land Use Map in our local comprehensive plans (absent the periodic evaluation, appraisal and review process). Only landowners/developers will very deep pockets will pursue a voter-approved FLUM Amendment process, and they will only do so for large projects where the benefits are self-evident even to the most fickle of voters. This will impose “de facto” urban growth boundaries on our settlements. Since I moved to Florida in 2002, I have advocated the adoption of urban growth boundaries as a powerful tool to better manage growth in the state. The typical response from elected officials and public sector planners has been a raised eyebrow. Once, an elected official even reacted of my advocacy of urban growth boundaries as “communistic”, which is ironic since I was once accused of being a “fascist” planner in Europe during the 1990s. Urban growth boundaries can be used to direct growth away from typical post-WII suburban sprawl, greenfield developments to instead promote: brownfield development, historic rehabilitation, urban redevelopment, adaptive re-use of building stock and traditional neighborhood development; increased densities to support mixed-use communities and consolidate vehicular trips; the viability of alternative modes of transport (walking, biking, street cars, bus, rail, etc.); and, the preservation of rural lands. Voting YES on Amendment 4 with serendipitously thrust one of the most powerful tools for growth management into the laps of our public planning agencies (thank you very much). The fact is most of our elected leaders do not have the political courage to adopt this tool. Consequently, many of our public planners fail to advocate when it counts the benefits of urban growth boundaries as a growth management tool. Voting YES on Amendment 4 will make urban growth boundaries a fact.

2. Growth will not be stopped. It will only evolve… for the better

The anti-growth, leftist origins of Florida Hometown Democracy as NIMBYism writ large cannot be doubted. The initiative emerged out of Sierra Club radical environmentalism and a leftist billionaire bankrolled its ballot petition drive. Florida Hometown Democracy is a creature of the left. This drives an almost irrational fear in this state, which historically has leaned to the political center-right (especially in central/north Florida). But I am not afraid. Much like Dr. Frankenstein, this creature will not do what its creators hope. It will not stop growth. The drawn-out, half-decade process to get the initiative on the ballot and begin electioneering (with an additional year after approval before implementation, pending legal challenges) provided ample time to redress flaws in local comprehensive plans. Given these circumstances, voting YES on Amendment 4 will only serve to redirect growth away from greenfields (requiring a FLUM Amendment) to lands already entitled under the comprehensive plan. This will promote the more sustainable models of development previously mentioned. If a local municipality has not adequately prepared their comprehensive plan, then they might expect a negative impact on economic development sooner rather than later (absent going back to the voters) but they will have only themselves to blame. There was ample warning. Voting YES on Amendment 4 will promote Smart Growth planning principles since it will redirect development (with higher densities to maximize profits) to areas where utilities/public services are already available. The end result will be more cost- and energy-efficient settlement forms, and reallocation of resources from ever-outward expansion of utilities/services to instead maintenance/upgrading of established systems. Over the long-term, in real terms, it should lead to lower utility and property tax bills in the State of Florida.

3. The Real Estate Industry will adapt… or perish

After the Great Recession, few seem aware of the delicious irony surrounding the debate over Amendment 4. Its proponents are trying to stop growth already stopped while its opponents want to protect growth already dead (and, for which many of them are culpable). However, growth will return. The question is: what kind of growth will it be? Evidence is abundant the necessary lessons of the Great Recession have not been learnt, namely “big risk, over leveraged, easy money” business models are fatally flawed. Even more troubling, our business and political leaders (and those in Washington and on Wall Street) seemed poised, even eager, to make the same mistakes all over again (see Einstein’s definition of insanity). However, Florida can no longer sustain the personal or public cost of energy-inefficient, suburban sprawl developments so characteristic of post-WWII America (and especially here). The business and planning models of our real estate industry are dinosaurs and need to evolve lest they become extinct. Voting YES on Amendment 4 will force the real estate industry to think outside of the “easy money, lazy thinking” box it has been trapped for the last 30 years. Americans are incredibly clever and creative innovators when they decide to be (especially when it comes to business and profit). Voting YES on Amendment 4 will firmly set the brightest minds of our business and political leadership to the task of innovating the real estate industry for a more sustainable future. Personally, I find this to be a very exciting challenge. The alternative is founded on fear of the unknown and the conceit we are forever trapped in the bubble cycle of ‘boom and bust’. I don’t believe it.

4. Greater demand for physical planning and design expertise

The conventional wisdom is approval of Amendment 4 will devastate the planning profession (especially public planning agencies). In my experience, the most predictable thing about conventional wisdom is how often it is wrong. I believe approval of Amendment 4 will lead to increased demand for planning expertise from top-to-bottom throughout the real estate industry (including our public planning agencies). The nature of this demand will change from regulatory planning of the “meet the minimum requirements” variety to expertise on physical planning and design in order to maximize profit in the horizontal and vertical dimension of developments. Approval of Amendment 4 will increase use of Planned Unit Developments as developers seek to tailor zoning/design requirements to maximize profit margins on entitled urban land. The focus of public planning agencies will shift away from processing paper to physical planning, especially since land development regulations/review will have to be more robust, flexible and nuanced. This will expedite the shift over the last 30 years in the planning profession from a social science focus to its proper place as the art and science of physical design. Few landowners will pursue a comprehensive plan amendment process that is subject to voter approval. When they rarely do, they will be forced to go BIG (think Development of Regional Impact on steroids) so the multitude of benefits is an obvious ‘slam-dunk’ for the voters. The normal EAR process will be invigorated as land owners/developers invest more in planning services to justify expansion of the de facto ‘growth boundary’ established by Florida Hometown Democracy. The political and professional debate over future growth of communities will be similarly invigorated. The Rural Land Stewardship program will have to be revisited, innovated and expanded. Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) will become a more effective means to short-term profit for landowners of large, greenfield lands to realize the value of their property. And, most importantly, draconian environmental protection requirements that perversely promote suburban sprawl in Florida will have to be revisited, refined and relaxed by our political leadership to become more nuanced. Voting YES on Amendment 4 will be a boom to the planning profession. Instead of fearing Florida Hometown Democracy, planners should embrace the tremendous opportunities for innovation and creativity it will unleash in our profession.

5. Property values will rise for the greatest number of people

There are several studies demonstrating urban growth boundaries lead to increases in urban property values. Most recently, I am aware of such a study with similar findings produced by Florida State University. With Florida Hometown Democracy operating as a “de facto” urban growth boundary, a sustainable climb in urban property values will result. For rural, greenfield lands not entitled under local comprehensive plans, the land value should remain stable. The collapse of the residential/commercial real estate market in Florida during the Great Recession has already deflated land values so they have – more or less – bottomed out. This does mean property taxes on rural lands will remain low for their owners. And since Florida has a history of large, rural land ownership under the auspices of a single family or entity, any discernable deflation in rural land values will affect only a few rather than the many. Voting YES on Amendment 4 will be a boost for urban property owners, who represent the overwhelming majority of people in the state. Higher property values will also lead to increased tax revenues (without mileage hikes) for our local governments; stabilize and reignite the existing residential housing market in the state; and, reinvigorate access to credit as people’s home value rises.


There are even more reasons to support Amendment 4 than I can articulate in this brief article. And I could easily go into greater detail about the reasons I have cited in this article to support Amendment 4. Also, I freely admit, I’m very fond of playing the role of the rebel in my profession and going against the grain to support Amendment 4 fulfills that inclination. But, ultimately, my decision to support Amendment 4 comes down to one fundamental truth. What we have done in post-WWII America has not worked and it will not work in the future. It has led us into an unsustainable suburban sprawl nightmare. It has led to a devastated residential and commercial real estate market. It has led to massive deflation of property values. It has led to rampant foreclosures and unemployment. It has led us into a seemingly bottomless pool of unimaginable debt. And it will lead us there again. The Great Recession has demonstrated beyond doubt our urban, more traditional neighborhoods are better suited to withstand market fluctuations in land values. The Great Recession has demonstrated beyond doubt how really worthless are the expanses of devalued suburban sprawl properties across this state. It’s time to chart a new course. Voting YES on Amendment 4 will set Florida down a new path, full of exciting opportunities and challenges, to creatively innovate our business models, our developments, our industry and our profession. I urge you to vote YES on Amendment 4. It will be a vote for the future rather than the past.

Mark David Major is Immediate Past Chair of the First Coast APA, serving as Chair from 2005-2008. During this time, he also served on the APA Florida Executive Committee. He participated in adopting the Chapter’s position against Florida Hometown Democracy and support of Floridians for Smarter Growth; a coalition of public and private organizations advocating defeat of Amendment 4. Mark has lived in Florida for 8 years and worked as an urban planner in private consulting, local government and a Fortune 500 homebuilder.

Share the knowledge!