Marion County Republican Executive Committee (MCREC) opposition to CS/ SB 1080 (Reconsideration Attempt)
Seems to be an enormous amount of opposition to SB1080 in our communities through out our State, and even after it failed in final committee, there seems to be a move internally to reconsider the bill.
It is with some level of dismay and disappointment that the will of the electorate of the Marion County Republican Party is being ignored by this Bill’s sponsor. The Senator again is pushing for passage, despite a public “No” decision by the legislature, as well as prior numerous letters from a number of County Republican organizations. Some of the key factors are noted below, what is most distressing is the disregard of a legislator to support the will of the people.
So the following is our opinion on why we opposed the bill and the following is what we addressed to each Senator. Make up your own minds because this bill is not dead yet.
On behalf of the Marion County Republican Executive Committee (MCREC), representing more than 130,000 registered Republican voters we strongly oppose this bill and recent amendment.
This Bill, in our belief, jeopardizes rural farmland and seeks to require approval of residential development in traditional farming areas as an alternative method to circumvent County control of land development and preserve rural land We urge Senators to vote “NO” on this bill and solicit the Governor’s support, should this bill pass, to “Veto” this action.
As Republicans, and citizens of Marion County, a strong principle is “home rule” with respect to zoning / land utilization, and open space preservation. These Bill’s seek to undercut this key principle and the “will of the electorate.” It is not clear what constituency is served by these overt draft policies to negate Comprehensive Plans and community input at the County level.
Marion County is undergoing explosive growth and with the “growing pains” of increased traffic / school overcrowding with projections of + $1B in future infrastructure and +$1B in school capital / maintenance cost projections. This bill, as amended, now puts in jeopardy generational agriculture lands for expansion into residential developments. This Bill weakens preservation of rural lands, seeks to expand urban use well beyond designated urban areas and also seeks to restrict local government control of development related impacts fees. All these aspects diminish the effectiveness of public input.
A couple of selected provisions in this bill we oppose from the most recent amendment (659760):
(1) Restricts local government from enforcing laws and regulations on an agricultural enclave that are more “burdensome” – this is never defined and if there is an existing requirement in law or regulation why is the application of such requirements voided if viewed by the undefined term as “burdensome”
(2) Definition of Agricultural Enclave – this definition is purposely a 2-part requirement that is tied to generational farming > 5-years and to a separated single ownership/ control. Therefore, it mandates “Enclave” certification by a local government if the land was farmed for + 5-years, yet the current owner / controller (an undefined term) is not tied to that same timing requirement and therefore could be a single owner / controller that has just acquired the land. These requirements should be linked, the current text, as written it essentially “opens” generational farmland to acquisition by developers (“controllers” in the bill) to expand residential developments well beyond current practice.
(3) Impacts Fees – This bill also seeks to restrict local governments control and implementation of impacts fees and increase thereof. It inserts the following language that applies an overarching restriction to impact fee increases, regardless of local condition and circumstances that lead a local government to declare extraordinary circumstances exist.
“A local government may not increase an impact fee rate beyond the phase-in limitations under this paragraph if the local government has not increased the impact fee within the past 7 years.”
This text obviates data supporting a local government’s action and is also counterinitiative given ~2009 economic downturn and +2019 Covid epidemic that influenced many local governments to “freeze” or even pause impact fees. It also weakens “home rule” and negate the public’s input to changes that affect the daily lives / tax burdens of Marion County Florida citizens.
You be the judge!
