The pressure on local government to allow upscale development in the
Florida Keys continues unabated, despite an ongoing slump in
the real estate market. It seems that every time we blink we
see a new proposed loophole in growth-management
regulations.
For instance, the Monroe County Commission wants to allow
two new hotels — one at the Marathon Florida Keys Airport
and the other at Safe Harbor on Stock Island — that
presumably could be built outside current restrictions
because they would double as hurricane shelters.
The airport hotel plan took shape after a developer
friend of county Mayor Mario Di Gennaro pitched the idea,
and the Safe Harbor resort was slipped at the last minute
into a county ordinance intended to preserve working
waterfront. Never mind that the state has scoffed at the
county's shelter-in-place proposals, insisting that the Keys
be able to evacuate within 24 hours.
Two other proposed ordinances have emerged from the
county Planning Commission. The first, and most blatant,
redefines "seasonal residential unit" and allows snowbirds
to build seasonal homes on lots at RV parks. The only thing
that would make these "seasonal" homes different from any
other single family residences is a provision that owners
may not occupy their Keys houses for more than 180
consecutive days. In other words, if that occupancy
requirement were enforced — an absurdly unlikely prospect in
itself — the homeowners would have to take a weekend trip to
Disney World or an overnight shopping trip to Miami every
six months or so.
Planning Commission documents justify the land-use
amendment as, among other things, a means "to improve
physical living conditions and maintain the Keys economic
vitality derived from our seasonal population."
In reality, the proposal is a loophole that allows
Winnebagos to be replaced with new homes.
The other proposal is interesting in that it arrives at
the front lines of growth management flying the banner of
affordable housing. And, like many such proposals emerging
from local government these days, this proffered gift horse
more closely resembles a cosmetically altered Trojan horse.
At the core is an "incentive" for trailer park owners,
who will be able to transfer market-rate building rights
from their trailer parks to other locations. In exchange,
the trailer parks are deeded to the county, which leases
them back to the developers to manage as affordable housing.
In other words, the trailer park owner/developer
continues to operate a trailer park (presumably at a
profit), plus gets to build highly profitable upscale
housing without having to compete for the county's meager
annual allocation of building rights. (The plan apparently
presupposes the state will be handing over bucketfuls of
building rights for affordable housing.)
The result is no net gain for affordable housing, but a
substantial net gain for upscale housing.
Advocates of this type of housing shell game often
justify such arrangements with a property rights argument.
The owner of a mobile home park has a right to do whatever
he or she wants with their property, they contend.
But the argument is hollow. Zoning laws lawfully dictate
what property owners can do with their property. Former
county and Key West planner Ty Symroski recently noted in a
letter to the editor that local government "has no
obligation to change its zoning law to suit the needs of the
developer."
(That astute observation, which summarily has been
ignored, may offer a clue as to why Mr. Symroski's tenure
under a pro-development county administration was ever so
brief.)
If affordable housing were really the County Commission's
goal, we suspect the county would require more than 30
percent of new development be designated as affordable.
Five years ago, the $6 million Florida Keys Carrying
Capacity Study revealed that, in some respects, the county
already had exceeded its ability to withstand the impacts of
additional development. Clearly, we recognize that
affordable housing is a crisis that must be addressed in
Monroe County. But that crisis should not be used as a
smokescreen to unleash additional market-rate development.
The elected officials who enable — or sponsor — such
deceptions are not benefiting the residents they are
supposed to be serving.
