Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Workshop background and purpos...
 Changing future of Florida's waterfront,...
 Sources of conflict over waterfron...
 Preservation of the city of Miami's...
 Role of Sea grant in waterfront...
 Working group summaries
 Conclusions and recommendation...
 List of attendees

Group Title: Technical paper - Florida Sea Grant College Program ; no. 61
Title: Waterfront development and utilization in Florida
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076609/00001
 Material Information
Title: Waterfront development and utilization in Florida an issues and problems identification workshop, proceedings
Series Title: Technical paper Florida Sea Grant College Program
Physical Description: ii, 36 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Adams, Charles M
Thunberg, Eric M
Pybas, Donald W
Publisher: Florida Sea Grant College Program
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1991
Subject: Waterfronts -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Coastal zone management -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
conference publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Statement of Responsibility: edited by Charles M. Adams, Eric M. Thunberg, Donald Pybas.
General Note: "June 1991."
General Note: "Project No. PD-90-7."
General Note: "NA86AA-D-SG068."
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076609
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 28013117


This item has the following downloads:

UF00076609 ( PDF )

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Workshop background and purpose
        Unnumbered ( 5 )
    Changing future of Florida's waterfront, by Beth Dunlop
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Sources of conflict over waterfron access and use, by Linda Lampl
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Preservation of the city of Miami's working waterfront, by Joyce Myers
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Role of Sea grant in waterfront development and utilization decisions, by Bob Goodwin
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Working group summaries
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Conclusions and recommendations
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    List of attendees
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
Full Text

j2~ ;' &/

Paper No. 61




Charles M. Adams

Eric M. Thunberg
Donald Pybas



Florida Sea Grant Publication

eta esc

.v, oi W^




Edited By

Charles M. Adams
Florida Sea Grant College Program
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Eric M. Thunberg
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Donald Pybas
Florida Sea Grant College Program
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Miami, Florida

Project No. PD-90-7
Technical Paper No. 61
Florida Sea Grant College Program
June 1991




Table of Contents


Workshop Background and Purpose .................................................. ii


The Changing Future of Florida's Waterfront
(Beth Dunlop, Miami Herald) ................................................ 1

Sources of Conflict Over Waterfront Access and Use
(Linda Lampl, T.A. Herbert and Associates) ...................................... 5

Preservation of the City of Miami's Working Waterfront
(Joyce Myers, City of Miami Planning Department) ................................. 12

The Role of Sea Grant in Waterfront Development and Utilization Decisions
(Bob Goodwin, Washington State Sea Grant College) ................................ 15

Session Summaries

Session 1: Identification of Alternative Policies Relating to Waterfront
Planning and Impediments to Effective Implementation
-- Summarist: Wes Hoaglund, City of Titusville Community
Development Planning Division ................................... 20

Session 2: Factors Influencing the Pattern and Rate of Conversion
Between Current and Future Uses of the Waterfront
-- Summarist: Charles Adams, Florida Sea Grant,
University of Florida .......................................... 22

Session 3: Objectives of Waterfront and Coastal Community Planning
-- Summarist: Eric Thunberg, University of Florida .................... 24

Session 4: Assessing the Social, Cultural, and Environmental Tradeoffs
and Uncertainties Related to Waterfront Uses
-- Summarist: Linda Lampl, T.A. Herbert and Associates ................ 26

Session 5: Current and Alternative Forums for Mediating Conflict
Between Competing Uses of the Waterfront
-- Summarist: Bob Goodwin, Washington State Sea Grant ................ 27

Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................... 29

List of Attendees ............................................................... 34

Workshop Background and Purpose

Competition for and conflict over shoreline use
and access is a nation-wide concern and is particu-
larly acute in Florida. Estimates place Florida's
burgeoning population at 16 million residents by the
year 2000 with up to 85 percent of all new residents
seeking a coastal county location. With ever-shrink-
ing land resources available for new coastal devel-
opment, greater pressure has been exerted to con-
vert existing waterfront development to alternative
In the process of tearing down and building
back up, something which used to be is lost and
something is gained. Herein lies the source of con-
flict over waterfront development and utilization in
Florida. To some, conversion of waterfront property
to "nontraditional" uses represents a loss or the
breaking of a link to Florida's cultural past. To
others, waterfront conversion represents progress,
growth, a step forward toward Florida's future.
Questions over who should have access to water-
front land and to what uses waterfront land should
be put will continue to be a matter for public de-
Issues and questions revolving around appropri-
ate uses of the waterfront prompted Florida Sea
Grant to include waterfront issues in its long range
comprehensive plan of work for the Marine Exten-
sion Program. At the outset, however, questions
remained as to what are the most pressing issues,
what are the information needs, and who are the

clients for Sea Grant research and extension pro-
grams pertaining to waterfront use? To begin to
answer these questions on waterfront utilization
issues and problem identification, a workshop was
held at the Miami River Inn, Miami, Florida on
October 25-26, 1990.
The purpose of the workshop was to bring
representatives from a diverse group of actors in the
waterfront planning and decision making process
together to discuss the big issues and information
needs and help Florida Sea Grant identify its role in
that process. The invitation-only workshop consisted
of a half day session of invited speakers followed
by an afternoon and one-half of the next morning in
five different working sessions. Each working ses-
sion was headed by a discussion leader for the
prescribed topic. Workshop participants were initial-
ly assigned to a working group but were free to
move among the different working groups at their
This document provides a proceedings of the
workshop. Invited speakers remarks were recorded,
transcribed, and edited for publication purposes. A
summarist was designated to give a synopsis of the
findings of each workshop session. The remarks of
each summarist were also transcribed and edited.
Finally, conclusions and recommendations based on
the workshop proceedings are presented for Sea
Grant research and extension programming consid-

The Changing Nature of Florida's Waterfront
Beth Dunlop, Miami Herald

My interest in Florida's waterfront goes back as
far as my childhood when I first started coming to
Florida on winter vacations. This interest certainly
has peaked during the years that I have been the
Miami Herald architecture writer. More than almost
anything else, I end up writing about public project
conflicts; whether they are conflicts over the way a
street should be used or conflicts over the way the
waterfront should be developed.
I began researching Florida's past in 1986 for
a Miami Herald series that was entitled "Vanishing
Florida". The series later became a book and then
later became a Channel 2 public television docu-
mentary. Channel 2 went across Florida and got
some remarkable film footage that shows both the
devastation of the waterfront and evokes images of
the past. Within my memory and certainly within
the memory of everyone here, Florida's waterfront
was really a very simple proposition. There were
beaches and they were for swimming. There were
fishing villages and they were for fishing. There
were marinas and they were for boats. There were
dry docks and they were for boats that were not in
the water. There were cottages and they were for
living and these were simple picturesque places on
a small scale.... places that you could savor close
up. They were not for our fast paced lives, running
from place to place such as coming in from a con-
ference and leaving a conference. Like me and like
many of you here, we are juggling all sorts of
The research I did was, I think, unusual. This
discussion is not necessarily intended for an aca-
demic group, I didn't do demographic research and
I didn't do pure historical research. I was more
interested in finding out what Florida looked like
and how people perceived it. I read travelogues. I
read those WPA guides of Florida. I read real estate
brochures. I read tourist brochures. I read cook
books. I read letters and anything else I could find
that was descriptive. My house was more unlivable
than usual because I filled legal pad after legal pad
with names of places and descriptions of places. My
editors thought I was insane, which they usually
think that I am anyway, but I kept finding out more
and more about Florida. Some of my discovery was
names of places that I had never heard of and some
which had actually vanished! I wanted to get not
just an idea of how Florida looked (the time period

I used was essentially from 1870 to the present) but
I wanted to see how people thought it was, how
people perceived it and how they responded to it.
There's the reality of a place, the physical reality
and the perceived reality, and I think both are really
quite valid. And I know of no other place where
that perception of reality is more emotive than at
the waterfront where the land meets the water.
I had my personal memories of course. Unlike
many families, I grew up in a sailing family. We
came to Coconut Grove and stayed in one of those
little motels on the bluff there to buy a boat I know
it sounds odd but of my many memories of my
childhood in Florida, wandering through those big
marinas was absolutely magical. Maybe if you
haven't grown up as a toddler being dragged to boat
shows and seeing huge sail boats when you were
this tall it wouldn't seem so fabulous. At any rate I
then set out to find what was left of this Florida,
this perceived and old Florida, and certainly much
of my time was spent going along the waterfront.
I drove along much of the Gulf Coast, much of
the Atlantic Coast, and part of the way down the St.
Johns River. Again, it wasn't scientific. I had
already picked out places I was looking for and
places I wasn't interested in. There were places I
knew were worth going to and places I didn't think
I needed to see. It was not journalistic in the tradi-
tional sense of journalism. It was much more of a
quest, an emotional, almost impressionistic, quest. I
had my expectations. I was open to being pleasantly
surprised and in fact I found places that absolutely
blew me away, like Apalachicola. The most beauti-
ful and the most provocatively difficult place in
Florida, to my mind, because it is so extraordinary
and so out of the way and so poor and so ripe for
exploitation by the development and tourist interests
that are marching along the Panhandle.
For those of you that aren't familiar with Apa-
lachicola, it was a cottage shipping town that grew
to be very prosperous in the early 1800s. Then it
became a mill and millwork shipping town in the
late 1800s. The result of all of that is there are
incredible houses. From the prosperous shippers'
houses to the little tiny fishing cottages with beauti-
ful millwork and all. Apalachicola then became a
fishing town, subject to all the vagaries of the oys-
ter industry. Apalachicola stayed poor enough that
it didn't change to any particular degree during the

20th century unlike something comparable over on
the Atlantic Coast. So it sat there in all its little
pristine beauty, poor for many, many years. Its a
really fascinating place. Apalachicola may serve as
the best case study of the past, present, and future
of the Florida waterfront.
As I traveled, however, for every pleasant
surprise there was a disappointment. Beaches
washed away, small cottages and houses replaced
by bigger and more pretentious buildings. One of
my favorites as a get away spot from Miami is Ft.
Myers Beach. There I'm always so amused by the
fact that all the new condos and new hotels on Ft.
Myers Beach have Hawaiian sounding names. The
Hawaiian names try to evoke Hawaii. Lani Hani,
Lani Kai, Kulua and, my favorite, Kiwi, which
creates an image of this fuzzy place all green in-
side. I have come to realize that the process of
tearing down and rebuilding is certainly an age old
proposition. Miami Beach, for example, is not
something uniquely of our time but something we
have been grappling with and will continue to be
grappling with for many years to come. In Miami
Beach the process of tearing down and rebuilding
began decades ago.
I think one of the realities that has helped over
the history of Florida is that land and even the most
precarious and presumably unbuildable land, such
as marshes, sand dunes, swamps, has always had a
value beyond our expectations and certainly beyond
the value of what is built on it. It is a real continu-
ing and perpetual crisis of historic preservation.
Of course no where is this more true than of the
waterfront because waterfront land is often even
more valuable than land not along the waterfront. I
almost need not say this but it's not just the ocean,
bays, river inlets, and manmade canals. The irony is
that people in Florida came and dredged swamps
and made manmade waterways which then have
become so valuable that the reason that they made
those waterways was no longer considered to be
I was fascinated in my exploration of the more
recent Florida history when I encountered the kind
of weird and intriguing sagas of conflict in Ever-
glades City and Cortez, where in the fishing indus-
try the catch of the day was often marijuana--not
fish. I found the whole evolution of fishing villages
as hotbeds of smuggling to be so fascinating, but
also really sad. I found that the kind of institution-
alized need "for more" permeates all levels of soci-
ety. Smuggling marijuana is illegal, but I know

some "illegal" condominiums on the Atlantic Ocean
waterfront. Who is to say which one is worse than
the other. They are just different manifestations of
the same institutionalized American impulse to get
I think what also has happened over the years,
and I think this is more true over the last couple of
decades, is that something odd has happened in
planning. The terms "highest" use and "best use"
have become synonymous where they used to be
"and/or". The highest use is not always the best use
but now the given wisdom in politics is often that
the highest and best use are exactly the same thing.
For those of you who live in Dade County I discov-
ered that the most fascinating show on TV is the
Dade County zoning hearings. I kid you not, they
make a fascinating study of politics and a fascinat-
ing tale of our time. A friend of mine who's a
screen writer said, "You know, no one can write
dialogue like that." It is really quite incredible but
you can pluck a single study, a single case out of
those hearings and extrapolate it and find real sym-
bols for what has happened in Florida. This has
nothing to do with the waterfront except that I think
you all see where I'm going. I was watching the
hearings recently and there was a guy who had
bought 2 and a half acres in Kendall and had sold
off 1 and a half acres of the property. However,
there is a acre and a quarter minimum in this partic-
ular area, actually west Dade and not Kendall. The
man then turned around and said, "I have a hard-
ship, I only have 1 acre and I need to build 2 hous-
es in here." The planning director recommended
against it but the building and zoning director said,
" Well, not only does he have a hardship, but gee,
he's on this busy street and its already noisy so we
think he should be able to build two houses because
its already a noisy place." I then said to myself,
"Wait a minute, I just don't get this. This is a busy,
noisy street. So what good does it do, how does it
solve the problem, to build more and put more
people on the street?" But it is just that prevailing
logic that has allowed for an incredible over build-
ing on much of the urbanized waterfront.
It is often true that people plead a hardship that
is a figment of the imagination. I always like to
think about the old children's fable, the Magic
Grouper, where the fisherman goes to sea and pulls
up this giant grouper. He was an impoverished
fisherman living in a hoveL He brings the fish out
of the sea and the fish says, "I'm a magical fish.
You can have any wish you want if you just throw

me back." The fisherman throws him back and
goes home and he tells his wife and she says, "Why
didn't you wish for him to get us a better house?"
The fisherman goes back to sea and he asks the
grouper for a bigger house. He comes home and his
wife says, "That isn't good enough, I need a castle."
The fisherman goes back and he wishes for a castle.
It goes on like that and he keeps wishing for more
and finally his wife says, "Tell the magic grouper
that this isn't enough. I need the sun, the moon,
the stars, I need to control the universe." The mag-
ic grouper says, "I'm sorry, you've gone too far"
and sends him back to his hovel. I always think,
particularly along the waterfront, that sometimes the
developers go in feeling like they've caught the
magic grouper and it isn't enough to do something
that is small. It has to be bigger and they wish for
more and they wish for more until what we're left
with is nothing because we've reached for too
Back in 1986 when I was working on the
"Vanishing Florida" concept, I grew to realize that,
to my despair, a great deal of the historic waterfront
had been lost. I think the location of this conference
The Miami River Inn where we are today is
such a rarity. Sallye Jude has known all along that
she has a jewel here. A jewel of history. For the
most part, however, preservation of all that is
beautiful on the waterfront is going to be an issue
of re-creation from memory. On the other hand, the
preservation of the working waterfront is still a very
live issue and certainly a live issue in Miami. To be
able to see a working river I think is in continuing
jeopardy. We only need to walk a half block. Some
find it ugly. I find it incredibly picturesque. I think
for the working waterfront (this is true not only for
the Miami River but places throughout Florida
where there is a working waterfront, be it a port or
an area of marinas or drydocks or places where
commercial fishing industries are) the challenge is
keeping the working waterfront authentic and not
turning it into something that is synthetic. I think
that's an issue that has emerged and has been lost
in the Keys and I know that it is an issue through-
out Florida.
Another of the surprises in my travels was that
I had read about this adorable little fishing village
in Punta Gorda. I drove up to find it and it was
gone. What was there was a time-share condomini-
um on top of a shopping mall. It was astounding,
but the real fishing village was gone. The visual
material I had found about this village near Punta

Gorda was that it wasn't the most beautiful fishing
village anybody had ever seen. It was a working
fisherman's kind of place. The major pier was a
shipping pier that burned at the turn of the century
and all that was left was a portion out from the
harbor with shipping warehouses and all sorts of
Another issue, I don't exactly know what you'd
call it, is the question of authenticity versus some-
thing else. As waterfront is developed, particularly
with residential use in mind, the waterfront becomes
something that doesn't look like the waterfront at
all. I'm thinking particularly of the projects that I
saw a year ago while judging an American Society
of Landscape Architects Award Program. A lot of
places were designed and landscaped as if they
were in suburban Orlando and not on the Gulf
Coast or along the river.
I think perhaps the most critical question fac-
ing the waterfront of the future is that of access,
which is a problem people have grappled with ever
since the waterfront began to be developed. There
are a lot of issues. There is visual access and physi-
cal access and access by land and access by car and
access by boat. There is no one right answer here.
In Ft. Lauderdale there's a ballot question coming
up about keeping A1A in perpetuity as a scenic
road. I've always thought that A1A was incredibly
important because it makes Ft. Lauderdale a special
place. There are few other places where you drive
that far along the water's edge and have that sense
of the juxtaposition of building, street, golden
beach, ocean. Ocean Drive is another place where
you don't drive anymore, you just sort of creep
along because it is incredibly popular now.
I think that another source of conflict, in what I
consider is the public's right to see the water and
to see the juxtaposition of the land and the water
and to see the land from the water. Those of you
who live in Miami and drive across the Juliett
Tuttle Causeway know what has happened there as
a puzzling result of Department of Transportation
standards. Barricades along the sidewalks exist that
are solid concrete. The vistas across the bay are no
longer clear vistas. You must stand up and look
over. In some places they've even barricaded higher
so there is no vista. I know that this is something
that is happening not only in Miami because I
believe there was a comparable bridge proposed in
Ft. Myers. It is a standard bridge design now from
the Department of Transportation. I think
throughout Florida, where a place that is so flat and

where there are so few vistas, that we've really
relinquished an important opportunity to use the
waterfront by letting our causeways and bridges
become interstate highways. In Miami, in particular,
where the causeways go across the spoil island, I
look at them and think were only Frederick Olm-
stead alive today these causeways would be a sim-
ple park. They should be closed on Sunday for
everybody but bicyclists and picnickers and fisher-
men. Instead, it's I 195 and it's 55 miles an hour
and it absolutely makes no sense to me and it
makes absolutely no sense to most people. I know
this because one of the ways in which I can gauge
what people think, is how long they talk about
something that I've written. I once wrote a piece 3
or 4 years ago about causeways that people still talk
to me about as if it were yesterday. It is an incredi-
bly important issue.
I think that for much of Florida, the develop-
ment of the waterfront is a politicatidsu&s long as
that exists, as long as it remains a political issue,
for all of our lifetime and in our children's lifetime,
we'll be fighting the fight to find the best and not
the highest use of the waterfront. We'll be fighting
the fight to retain public access and visual access
and aesthetic access to the waterfront. I think its
something that I don't have all the answers to but I
think its something that we have to come to grips
with. Dade County has a shoreline review ordinance
that is sometimes wonderful and sometimes terrible.

I wrote recently about two buildings that look at
each other, where in one case the shoreline review
board acted nobly and in the other case they acted
ignobly and allowed 10 or 15 setbacks in various
places along the waterfront in exchange for a 5 ft
walkway with no actual public access.
I think another issue, and this is a difficult one,
is developing an appropriate architectural style for
the waterfront. We're used to plopping down high-
rises or building little rows of town houses that look
like Harbor Place in Baltimore. We have not found
an idiom for our times. What we've found is a
perfect urban design methodology for building
along the waterfront. Its a difficult proposition.
What makes all of this exceptionally difficult is the
diversity of Florida's waterfront. When I sat down
to think about the waterfront, a barrage of images
came into my head. One moment I was thinking
about Ocean Drive in South Beach and the next
image was the St. Johns River at Palatka, wide,
serene and beautiful The next image was of the
sugar sands along the Panhandle and the next image
was the canals in F. Lauderdale. It is not an issue
that finds a singular solution. One of the key points
is finding a host of solutions to a host of problems,
almost every one of which is different. The issues
for Miami downtown bayfront are different from
the issues of Miami's inner key bayfront and the
answer for Ft. Lauderdale's beaches is different
from Miami Beach.

Sources of Conflict Over Waterfront Access and Use
Linda Lampl, J.A. Herbert and Associates

T.A. Herbert and Associates is a small consult-
ing firm out of Tallahassee, Florida. We work with
the commercial fishing industry and oil, gas, and
power industry in the State of Florida. All these
industries need waterfront access in some shape or
form. My background is anthropology. I'm a cultur-
al anthropologist or what is known as a practicing
anthropologist. I deal with real life people, real life
problems. I do not deal with old bones. I try and
get that straight right up front -- I'm not an archae-
Over the last 18 years I have worked in some
capacity with commercial fishing or around water-
front type issues. Before I was an anthropologist I
was a news reporter in the Fort Pierce area. And
then after becoming an anthropologist I became
interested in fishing and the problems fishermen
were having in the State of Florida. I conducted an
ethnographic study four years ago at Pine Island in
Lee County and that was in connection with the
State's intention to make redfish a game fish. Two
years ago I also lived in Apalachicola for five
months, working on a project to develop fishery
options with the local community With that as a
background you have some idea of who I am and
the kinds of things that I've done.
My topic today is conflict in terms of water-
front use and access. One of the things that comes
to mind every day is that there is such a regional
and occupational variation in our language. This
particularly came home to me last night when we
were sitting around having a glass of wine and I
was talking about a fish house when someone said,
"What's a fish house?" There were three answers
and they were very, very different. With that in
mind, I thought that maybe a good way to move
into our discussion during the next day and a half
would be to talk about what is the waterfront?
What is access? What is conflict? What are uses for
waterfront? In listening to both of our previous
speakers, I heard some definitions describing rather
different uses for the term waterfront. One said it
was where the land meets the water. Another said it
is where private property meets the common prop-
erty. At this point I thought I would throw it open
to some discussion on what other people feel is a
definition for the waterfront. What is the water-

"I think it's important to distinguish the
urban waterfront from other waterfronts
and to recognize that there's a set of
policies that apply to urban waterfront
that may not be appropriate for rural
waterfront. The problems and the solu-
tions are very different one from anoth-
er. But there is no one waterfront, it's a
very diverse edge."
"I think it's important that you may
choose, for example, the river (the Mi-
ami River) if you consider the water-
front as North River Drive and South
River Drive. You might consider that
parochial. However, I would consider
Biscayne Boulevard ending east of that

What seems to be the characteristics that define
the waterfront? Is it geographic, such as east or
west, or is it something that happens along the
river? I think what you're saying is that it's not
just where the land touches the water but the sur-
rounding area as well.

"Right The area that the water impacts.
I want a good environment on the river,
but I also want a marine environment
and I know we can have both."

"I think we're talking about where we
environmentally allow an interface with
water and human activities. For in-
stance, most of Charlotte Harbor is set
aside as a wetland preserve so that the
great majority of the shoreline in Char-
lotte Harbor is forever taken out of
human interface in any kind of density
at all except for the casual sport fisher-
man along the flats, and so forth. Even
though we have 125 square miles of
water, and God knows how much
shoreline, there's a very limited amount
where you can have any kind of serious
human interface between the land and

So it is where the humans use the waterfront?

"Primarily that's what we are talking
about here."

"I think it is also true that there are two
different meanings of the word. You
might talk about the waterfront which
might be an industrial shipping area or
a dock along the water somewhere and
then there is waterfront property which
might mean something that is located
near the water or near the ocean, both
are different concepts. Also, I partially
disagree with the gentleman from Punta
Gorda that there is no human interface
on Charlotte Harbor. It's a different
kind of interface. It is access oriented as
far as people going to the beach or going
into the wetland areas and utilizing the
waterfront temporarily for sport or
fishing or beach going and then coming
back out. It's not waterfront in the sense
of development interface but it is a hu-
man interface."

So there is a timing element?

"Yes. One is temporary and one is not."

"I think it depends really if you look at
it in a past and present sense because in
the past there were more estuaries of
which your marine resources were de-
pendent upon and now it is no longer
that healthy estuary. We are still depen-
dent upon it, but it is no longer there for
you except in very small areas and I
think that has had a detrimental impact
on a lot of people as well as the re-

So are you placing it in a sense of the resource
itself being the water area?


"Let's not forget those few kids with a
bamboo pole who traditionally have
always had access to the water....always
had access to the bluffs. They had to go
up around the house or something but
they always had access to the water.
They stayed out of trouble because

catching fish was not like stealing
hubcaps. We are looking at a whole
generation of kids now that are being
shut off from the water."

Anybody else?

"I've got two linear miles of water right
now and not one inch of it is natural.
It's all man created. It's dredging to
build a cheap house, it's rip rap, it's
vertical seawall. My waterfront is
forever changed."

So we've got time dimensions. We've got what
is natural versus what is not natural and we have
waterfront with which we interface as far as the
resource is concerned. Does that sound like a

"I have lived in Florida since 1979 and
several things struck me as being
pompous in some ways about many
Florida communities. There would be
cries from various groups that all the
children don't have access to enough
activity. You have to have museums,
you have to have nature centers, you
have to get parks, etc., so the young
people have something to do. The cry
from the town council is that we don't
need to do that, we've got the beach.
There was a reliance on the waterfront,
which was going to give us everything
and yet at the same time, it doesn't.
There are some cultural activities and
some recreational activities that you
won't find on the waterfront,
traditionally, and you can't expect it to
provide. At the same time that they were
looking for the waterfront to provide all
this, they were closing it off further and
further. There appears to be a paradox
there. They wanted to use the waterfront
as a scapegoat not to provide certain
things and at the same time they were
making sure that they could not, in some
cases, provide the minimum for what
they were looking for."

"Think back to the old view of New
York harbor, Manhattan, and Boston in

the 1800s. The waterfront was the prime
area. Everything was done at the har-
bor. But now that has changed."

Referring to conflict in terms of use and in
terms of access, I'd like to define conflict itself and
I'd like to use a very basic definition from the
perspective of two or more individuals holding
different values, i.e. conflict over waterfront access
and use. First I'd like to focus on the actors or
what is many times perceived as the source of the
conflict. In that sense we should approach this in
terms of who is visible and who is invisible, who
has direct access and who has indirect access.
In terms of visibility we have the person out
there with the cane pole. We also have the commer-
cial fishermen. We have the sport and recreational
fishermen. We also have the public who may be
over at the park jogging or maybe doing something
else. We also have workboats who come up and
down the Miami River, the St. Johns, and the Apa-
lachicola. We also have waterfront restaurants. We
have waterfront property owners. Some of those
property owners may have individual condos and
some of them may have individual homes depend-
ing on the particular area that they are in, whether
it's urban or rural or in between somewhere. Those
are the visible ones and they're the ones I think that
we hear the most about in terms of regulation or in
terms of control.
We have other users and I'm one. In terms of
consulting I cannot access the water to use it unless
somebody makes it available. So I have indirect
access. There may be other people who need access
through others and they may be less visible. They
may be boat manufacturers. Certainly their boats are
visible but the boat owners themselves and boat
manufacturers are not. In terms of developers, we
have condo developers, we have community devel-
opers and we also have developers of facilities for
tourism. We also have single family development.
We have government and universities who fall into
a similar category as consulting people who some-
where need access of some sort.
I'd like to link up those actors in need of ac-
cess with some of the uses of the water that I per-
ceive that they have. These are only my perceptions
at this point in time. They are not meant to be
comprehensive but rather just to suggest for discus-
sion some of the private individual groups or pri-
vate individuals who actually use the waterfront and
require access to it. In terms of commercial fisher-

men, I perceive that fishermen use the waterfront to
tie up their boats./To have a place that they can
load ice onto their boats and then head out, actually
go out and harvest fish. They then come back and
tie up their boat again to offload their fish. A place
where they can repair their boats, or find someone
else who can repair their boats. A place where they
can store their gear. A place where they can make
money, ultimately, because that may be the place
where they exchange the fish for some kind of a
revenue. This forms a sense of status, in some
sense, of their lifestyles. Their access to the water is
direct because they have their boats tied up there.
In cases where they cannot tie their boat up, and
that occurs in some places of the state, fishermen
must trailer their boats. They keep them on a trailer,
keep them at home, and put them in at some kind
of public or other kind of boat ramps. However,
waterfront access is required.
We have sport and recreational fishermen who
may want to make use of the water to store their
boats or have access to the water to go fishing.
They may use it for recreation. They may use it for
status themselves. They may have access by water,
by trailer, by ramp, and by forklift. They may need
dry stacks.
Government has uses for the waterfront itself
and one of those is for regulatory control which
certainly creates jobs for many of us. There also are
shipping, transportation, and public service uses as
well as ownership statutes and regulatory authori-
ties. As I mentioned there are other kinds of users.
There are universities, such as Sea Grant, and other
users such as myself. There is also the public,
which is what I perceive as probably the most ill-
defined group. It is a kind of amorphous group,
such that many of us trot out and say, "This is for
the public!", but we don't know where the public is
or who it is. Part of that public sometimes seems to
be waterfront property owners in the sense of single
family owners. The waterfront public happens to
live there so they are visible in that sense. Then we
have the public in terms of recreation users and
we've talked about them in terms of direct and
indirect access.
We also have developers. There are a number
of different kinds of development on the waterfront.
These people also have a desire to generate reve-
nue. There is also power and status, which I men-
tioned along with the commercial fishermen. Virtu-
ally anyone who has ownership of property on the

waterfront has some kind of status, some kind of
So we have a kind of vision from what other
people have said and what I've tried to draw togeth-
er, regarding what is the waterfront. What is human
usage and how do we identify it? The question I
wish to address then is why is there any kind of
conflict? What I suspect is that we have a value
conflict. These values are not necessarily right or
wrong, but they are very, very different. I'd like to
take two groups of people that I'm more familiar
with for several different reasons and get a little bit
deeper into just who they are and how they use or
value the waterfront. I mentioned earlier that I am
an anthropologist and a model exists that we use
sometimes in getting deeper into who a group of
people is. It's an onion we kind of peel away to
reveal an image. I'm not going to get all the way
into the onion because it's too early in the day for
In looking at commercial fishermen, we might
say in a visible sense that he or she harvests fish.
I'm going to address this generically here although
most of the commercial fishermen I know are men.
They harvest fish from inshore or offshore waters.
They return to the docks and, in most cases but not
all, they unload and tie up their boats. There are
values though, that go beyond the ability to generate
money from that particular activity. There is a way
of life that goes along with that, particularly in the
State of Florida, particularly in the more rural areas.
I'm not that sure about some of the urban areas,
how much is bound up in a sense of community or
sense of lifestyle. There is also a relationship with
the fishhouse owner and I'm going to define a
fishhouse here as a place where fishermen might
offload fish.
Over the years there have been many different
kinds of arrangements. If I'm a fishhouse owner,
perhaps someone would sell me their fish in ex-
change for a place to tie up their boat. This means
no money would change hands in that specific
sense. Over the years this activity has changed
somewhat. Commercial fishermen values this life
style, which has, as I understand it, a degree of
freedom that many other people do not recognize as
being there. Sometimes a commercial fisherman is
perceived as a very romantic figure because he or
she has control of his own factors of production on
the boat. He has free time in terms of when he goes
out, never mind that that is regulated by another
person or a personification, which is mother nature!

The waterfront property homeowner is the next
person I'd like to go a little bit deeper with. That
may be the person who moved down from Ohio. It
might be someone who has worked all their life and
who has read the ads and is ready to come down.
They are going to purchase waterfront property so
that they can have access to the ocean. This is their
place in heaven or their fantasy or whatever it is.
Although this is stereotyping to a degree, possibly
they are retired and dependent on mail box econo-
my, which is a very different thing from the state's
commercial fishermen. They have an abundance of
time which they can use for recreation, or leisure,
and they can also use it for political purposes. They
may have a different value in terms of what their
lawn is supposed to look like, or what that area
around their house is supposed to look like. Some-
times I think that the people who move from Ohio
really have a fixation on still wanting to mow the
fields. They still need to get out and do that kind of
activity. They desire some privacy and there may be
an aesthetic value there. So we have a difference in
One of the basic differences in values has noth-
ing to do with looks. I've heard many people say
this. I think one of the basic values differences we
have relates to what is work, what is play, and
what is leisure. Commercial fishermen go out and
get paid to do what some people have to pay to be
allowed to do. There is a basic value difference
there and it is highly visible.
I think that value differences are the source of
conflicts and it's not just that value difference be-
tween work and play. Another difference is the
perception of whether something is being "run
down". I'm not sure that what is run down to one
person is run down for another. What is an appro-
priate architectural style for one person may not be
for another. In some ways it may be a class issue.
The term highest and best use. What is the highest
and best use for whom? Who is going to be in-
volved in that kind of decision? Some people have
ties to development. Perhaps I have some kind of
bank loan that I have to meet the payments on and
I have to show them a business plan and I am
going to maximize my investment and returns.
Alternatively, maybe if I'm a fisherman I have a
different set of objectives. I have maybe a lower
investment, which is because I know about the
cycles that nature goes through. I cannot totally
depend on these in a financial sense. So we have
different values and we have different reasons for

these values. When I bring this up it's not because
I'm saying one is a better value than another. I'm
bringing it up because I believe it is one of the
sources of conflict regarding how the waterfront
should be used.
I think we have another basic problem which
addresses our expectations. That story on the magic
grouper, certainly brought this into focus in a lot of
different ways. I think that it goes back to whether
we can expect everything from the waterfront. Can
we really get everything from the waterfront?
There is a theory developed in anthropology which
was connected to the peasant society in Central
America. This theory is referred to as the theory of
limited goods. Under this theory the people in this
particular anthropological work group had a fixed
amount of goods. Any one person who took more
than their share from this limited amount of goods
was getting more than they were supposed to. The
shares were then unequal. I'm not sure that we
don't have a limited amount of goods (i.e. water-
front). In fact I suspect that we do, particularly
since we have these environmental regulations that
have come along for various reasons, and again I'm
not attaching value to that. But I think there is a lot
of waterfront area that has been taken out of use
that will not be used for docks and piers and other
kinds of waterfront related uses in the future. What
is left is a fixed amount, and I'm not sure that we
can have it all. I don't have an answer for you here
today but I'd like to throw it open to more of these
questions on values and what these values mean.

"Linda, your whole presentation is based
on your definition of conflict, that is two
or more individuals holding different
values. I want to challenge you to think
a little about your definition, because I
think you make it too black and white,
good or bad, or right or wrong. It as-
sumes no resolution to the problem
because you have different values. I
think a lot of the different groups that
you mentioned will hold similar and
related values on some issues related to
the waterfront and different values on
some other issues. You made it very
clear regarding the homeowner coming
down from Ohio versus the fishermen.
There's no question that there you may
observe a lot of different values. But the
commercial fishermen and the shipping

people may have some similarities to
some of their needs. The homeowner and
the recreational boater will find a lot of
commonalities in their values. And some
of those old residents may be environ-
mentalists at heart. I just think that the
word different makes it very black and
white and I don't think it is quite that

I understand what you're saying. Good point.

"I would like to suggest that perhaps we
can have conflict between people who
have absolutely identical values. I guess
the simplest example would be two men
wanting the same woman. You could
have two hotel chains coveting the same
parcel of land on the waterfront. So I
think the definition of conflict can be
extended beyond that of what you de-

"You can imagine what a good and
lively river would do to this institution
where we are right now, although it's
not water dependent. They had a little
problem with that up in Massachusetts
and it has to do with the blue belting
law. The law specified water oriented
and not water dependent. And I believe
the court ruled that a shipping company
office would be water oriented, but not
necessarily water dependent. My prefer-
ence is for water dependent uses on the
waterfront. But there you run into other
conflicts. A year ago we had a bridge up
here that was closed to street traffic for
10 months and put out a lot of people
and hurt their businesses, darn near put
them out of business. Yet a lot of them
were automobile repair, part suppliers,
etc. People couldn't get in to buy some-
thing yet they had nothing to do with
the river but they were dependent on a
working river. If the bridge had been
working they wouldn't have been hurt.

So they were indirect users?


"Sometimes the conflict can be within
one individual. I was thinking about the
person that maybe, for economic purpos-
es, exploits an area he knows is over
harvested contrary to maintenance of
substantial yield. People might have a
waterfront use that they've had in their
family for awhile but for economic rea-
sons they are forced to sell or redevelop
into a more economically beneficial use.
So there can be Internal conflicts within
an individual."

"I think one of the things that is lacking
is a system by which we can make
rational and objective decisions in rela-
tion to common property resources. We
don't really have a system by which we
can get a decision that can make all the
people happy all of the time."

"We have a system, people just choose not to
use it."

"There shouldn't be a system, there
shouldn't be a process. It has been said
that we'll be fighting this forever. The
reason for that is in some cases you have
to allow market forces to determine the
best usage. Yet sometimes you have to
allow environmental concerns to deter-
mine the best usage. Sometimes you have
to allow the little boy with the fishing
pole to reveal the best usage. You are
not going to find a checklist that we can
go through and mark these things off
because it's going to be different every-
where, every time, forever and ever."

"I think 'we' move from decision to
decision and issue to issue depending on
politics, depending on different land
uses, different public perception of wa-
terfront issues, depending on whatever
forces or opinions are driving individu-
als at a particular time. The definition of
'we' varies considerably."

"My question has to do with scale. We
are always evaluating land use conflicts
where perhaps conflicts previously did
not exist. My question is how the

thought process includes the concept of
scale. When I was a child in Florida 40
years ago there were conflicts, but they
weren't exactly large. There were 13
million people. I would think that this
conference should address how to antici-
pate and how to increase the under-
standing of whether the increased de-
mand for that waterfront land is going
to be met. Particularly when it is all
happening on such a scale that it is
nearly outside the ability of the normal
public process to control."

It's a very difficult question and I don't believe
that there is a solution. There may be some good
answers to this but they are going to be difficult.

"I think concurrency is going to help
arrive at an answer. The more dense the
development, then development in the
outlying areas is going to be prohibited.
There are a lot of problems with con-
currency from a development stand-

"The issue of conflict is something that
I've been involved with very dearly with
commercial fishing. We're exploring an
approach to conflict resolution with a
mediator. We have to involve both a
recreational and commercial fisherman
over the use of the water and the related
resources. The recreational industry,
when you try to solve the conflict, just
says, 'Well, there's more of us so we
should get the resource and the access.'
I don't think that's the proper solution.
But because there of more of them,
there are a lot of detrimental impacts
that are taking place in Florida. I think
it has hurt Florida. Just because there's
more money involved and more people
involved, that shouldn't be the reason
why we do things. I think we've lost our
values a great deal, our principles are
compromised. That's not how our deci-
sions should be made, just because
there's more of us and we have more
money and we have more members."

"That's called political reality."

"But before we completely destroy a
way of life we need to step back and
take a look. Is this the right way to
approach this?"

"I think that we're assuming that all
uses of the waterfront are equally viable.
You assume for example that the com-
mercial fishing industry is equally as
viable as the development industry and
yet the most prosperous projects some-
times go bankrupt. I think there's a real
problem in terms of viability of commer-
cial fishing. They are looking for alter-
native ways of supplementing their in-
come. Commercial fishing in many ways
is not really compatible with uses such
as restaurants. You can't have marinas
next to shrimp boats. We're not talking
in terms of a commercial fishing indus-
try as being a real viable industry that is
being squeezed out by development. I
think the problems for the future of the
fishing industry is that it is economically

not as viable as it used to be. And those people
are looking for a way to subsidize their incomes
to keep the fishing industry along the shorelines.
How do you merge these two uses?"

"I hear you, I just want to point out to
everyone that one of the reasons we have
a waterfront is to get to other water-
fronts. For example, the waterfront is
my way to get to town, get to school,
and get mail by mail boat. We are all
talking now about the waterfront as just
being land to water and I think that
there is another realm of conflicts.
Trucking has replaced the water as a
means of moving goods and services.
That's not a conflict amongst users of
the waterfront except perhaps there are
other things that happen to the water
that make the waterfront obsolete for
some of those. The waterfront is often
times intended to serve as access to
other waterfront. The water is just a
means to get there."

Preservation of the City of Miami's Working Waterfront
Joyce Meyers, City of Miami Planning Department

The topic of conservation of Miami's water-
front really constitutes the Miami River. There are a
lot of people in this room who know far more about
the Miami River than I do so please interrupt if I
say something wrong. I'd like to give a brief de-
scription of the river for those of you who are not
from Miami and may not be familiar with the topic
that I'm going to be analyzing during the second
half of my presentation. The river is about 5 miles
long from the mouth of the river in downtown
Miami to the central river control structure which
essentially blocks navigation further up the river.
It's a channel that is 15 to 18 feet deep and ranges
from about 100 to 280 feet wide throughout its
A real hodge podge of land uses exists along
the Miami River. Just about every variety and type
of land use coexists side by side, often creating
conflicts. There are water related commercial uses,
ship yards, and residential areas. There is absolutely
no consistency to the land use pattern along the
Miami River. The greatest share of users along the
river are the water dependent or water oriented land
uses. They make up about 34% of the total land
area. Residential is the next biggest use and that's
about 25%. If you like numbers, I'll give you the
rest of them. There is 18% in public utilities and
institutional uses, 16% in nonwater related commer-
cial uses, and about 7% vacant. The water depen-
dent and water related industries include marinas;
sales, service and repair of boats (ranging from
pleasure craft all the way up to major ships): sales
and repair of marine equipment, ship yards; sea-
food and fisheries distribution businesses; towing,
salvage and marine construction industries. We
now have about 17 shipping terminals that serve
the entire Caribbean basin and shallow water ports.
An economic study of the Miami River was
done in 1986. The study found there were 7000 full
time jobs, about 600 part time jobs, which generate
about $613 million total sales, and $1.2 billion
indirect impact on the local economy. There are
more recent numbers on that economic impact that
are currently being put together. Teo Babun is sit-
ting out there, can you fill us in on the latest data
that we've got on the river?

"Sixty-five ports in the Caribbean are
being serviced by the Miami River. That

includes all the islands in the Caribbean
and a number of places in Central and
South America. Approximately 1.3 mil-
lion tons of cargo left on the river last
year. That makes it one of the largest
ports in Florida. Combined with the
Port of Miami, it is equivalent to the
Port of Savannah which makes it one of
the largest ports in United States. The
value of the merchandise that left the
Miami River was over $2 billion last
year and the impact of that material
from the businesses, of those 17 termi-
nals, was over $300 million."

If you would bear with me, I'd love to read a
quotation from an article that I think is a capsule
of the character and the flavor of the Miami River.
It says,
"the Miami River is a commercial canal- Its
turbid, olive green water has rusty overtones.-
The river lacks serenity, natural beauty, pictur-
esque banks, and a store of legend or song to
provide it with an overcoating of romantic
nostalgia. The river is lusty, exciting, vigorous,
crowded, profitable, and a safe harbor when
hurricanes whine over the Caribbean. (That of
course has been changed recently and we know
that's not true.) The Miami River is a harlot
with a sweet quality which has always been
irresistible to reformers who wish to clean her
up, to change her ways, and endow her with
the righteous reputation Washington bequeathed
the Delaware. But she has eluded assignment
and taming."---
This article was written in 1964.
The conflict over the use of waterfront property
along the Miami River dates back at least into the
early 1930s. There has been a clash of interests
between commercial and residential users of the
river. The desire of the general public was to have
it not only residential in character, but very beauti-
ful and full of parks lining the shores. I brought
along several newspaper articles dating back into
the 30's that really are marvelous in describing the
kinds of conditions and conflicts along the river.
Prior to the 30's there was no planning or zoning,
of course, and businesses were scattered haphazard-
ly along the river. Residential uses were predomi-

nant. There was also a lot of vacant land that had
not been developed. In 1931 the dredging in the
Miami River by the Corps of Engineers sparked a
new wave of marine businesses coming into the
river and another big load of controversy from the
residents of Miami who didn't want to see this
happen. They wanted to preserve its pristine resi-
dential and park-like character, or what there was of
The first zoning ordinance that was adopted in
1934 pretty much incorporated the land use patterns
that were existing at the time. Things were already
here, there, and everywhere. They just adopted
existing use patterns. In 1941 a Miami Herald poll
found that about 85% of the residents of Miami
wanted to see the river returned to a residential and
park-like setting and get rid of the businesses. Dur-
ing that same year, World War II was upon us and
the navy started sending down a lot of contracts for
shipbuilding. There was a big rage and controversy,
with commercial interests arguing for zoning chan-
ges to allow shipbuilding industries to locate on the
river. Merrill Stevens boatyard expanded its busi-
ness at that time. Also, a lot of cargo related to the
war effort came in to the river. Then I have a gap
in my research. But somehow because of the war
and the influx of the businesses at that time, people
got used to the idea of a working waterfront. The
businesses became more well-established and some-
how in 1956, a draft of a zoning ordinance was
written that for the first time calls for waterfront
uses (water dependent and water related uses) and
creates a special zoning category to protect them.
The city had a comprehensive plan that was drafted
just prior to that zoning ordinance that didn't men-
tion it. The plan that followed it didn't mention it. I
can't quite figure out where the public thinking
was, but the planning office wrote a zoning ordi-
nance that provided two zoning districts, the water-
front recreation zoning district and waterfront indus-
trial zoning district. I want to explain what the
purposes of those two districts were.
The waterfront recreational district was intend-
ed primarily for those uses and activities which by
their nature required location on the water or a body
of water and which can most effectively utilize the
water frontage in the City of Miami. These uses are
either recreational in nature or quite directly related
to recreational activities involving the utilization of
a body of water that cannot generally function
satisfactorily when remote from a body of water.
This waterfront recreation district was not intended

for manufacturing or industrial uses which are pro-
vided for in the industrial waterfront district. But
rather involved uses like boat docks, marinas,
fishing piers, site-seeing and excursion boats, boat
repairs and recreational type boats. The district
prohibited residential dwelling units and was word-
ed to make sure that land was reserved for water
dependent uses. This was drafted in 1956 and was
officially adopted in 1961.
The waterfront industrial zoning ordinance was
a part of a redraft of the entire city's zoning ordi-
nance and so it took five years of debate and dis-
cussion to revamp the entire ordinance. But this
waterfront ordinance was changed very little in that
public debate process and it came out in the end
pretty much as we see it in this draft. This was the
first official policy to preserve and protect the
working waterfront in Miami. It was a very
farsighted policy for its time. Many communities
are only now discovering the need for similar
The 1961 waterfront zoning survives today in
the form of "SD-4, Waterfront Industrial Special
District". It is one district with all water-dependent
uses lumped together, rather than the two districts
(recreation and industrial) originally adopted. This
is unfortunate, because some of the uses are not
compatible in all locations. We are considering
going back to two districts. The policy of
preserving the working waterfront is also included
in the City's comprehensive plan.

What has been the effectiveness of the waterfront
Basically it has worked well. There have been
few changes in waterfront uses. Dick Whipple, who
is here in the audience today, administered the
ordinance from 1959 to 1985. He and I collectively
can recall very few instances where zoning changes
were granted to allow a non-water-dependent use
where one had previously existed. Most of the
successful changes were in the downtown area,
where this can be expected and is not necessarily
The principle way that the waterfront zoning
policy works is to discourage people from trying.
When you have a staff person like Dick Whipple or
myself, who receives the initial inquiry from
property owners about the possibility of a zoning
change, you tell the person that what he wants to do
is contrary to city policy and is unlikely to be
approved. Often that is the end of it.

Perhaps an equally important factor is lack of
economic pressure for change. In the case of the
Miami River (excepting the downtown segment) the
water dependent uses are in reality the "highest and
best use". There is little demand for residential and
other "upscale" uses, because waterfront property on
Biscayne Bay is far more desirable. Land values
along the Miami River are slightly higher than
comparable inland sites due to the waterfront ac-
cess, so other ordinary commercial and industrial
users look elsewhere.
Outlook for the future: Except for the shipping
industry, which is growing, and a few of the largest,
well-established boat yards, we have concerns about
the future viability of water-dependent businesses
on the Miami River. In 1986, an "Economic Study
of the Miami River" was prepared for us by Zuch-
elli Hunter and Assoc. This study is the ground
work for our plan, with some updating that our staff
is doing now. One of the biggest problems in
1986 and even more so now is crime. The crime
problem is often related to adjacent deteriorated
neighborhoods. Businesses that are oriented to the
recreational boating public and small businesses that
cannot afford private security guards are most vul-
nerable to the crime problem. These businesses can
potentially be pushed out of the River with nothing
to replace them.
Exacerbating problems are: 1) land value/rent
is high compared to profitability of the businesses
and 2) increased environmental code enforcement
creates new costs for compliance.
Positive factors for the future of the working
waterfront on the Miami River are: 1) the image of
the river is improving with ongoing cleanup efforts,
2) there are no other waterfront locations available

in Dade County for many of these types of busi-
nesses, and 3) there are no cheaper locations in
Dade County on the waterfront.

Our Miami River Plan is not very far along at
this point in time, however, some of the preliminary
recommendations may be as follows.
Neighborhood revitalization to improve the negative
influences created by surrounding areas. This is not
really possible right now due to lack of programs
and funds at the local, state, and federal levels. The
federal government used to be the primary source
of funding prior to the Reagan/Bush administra-
tions. We are hopeful the pendulum will eventually
swing back toward federal support for inner city
Crime Control funding is needed for increased
marine patrol and onshore patrol We are studying
possibilities of a special taxing district, user fees
(mainly for cargo vessels), and/or a port authority.
Facilitate growth in the shipping industry Specifi-
cally, this includes completing the long-debated
dredging project, solving conflicts with the general
community over the inconvenience of bridge open-
ings, and improving highway and rail transport links
to the shipping terminals.
Other possibilities are much more limited in
potential for making an impact on the River. These
include tax incentive, Tax Increment Financing
(TIF), mixed-use development, enterprise zones, and
more specific wording of comprehensive plan poli-
cies. I will not take time to discuss each one of
these, but will be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much.

The Role of Sea Grant in Waterfront Development and Utilization Decisions
Bob Goodwin, Washington State Sea Grant Program

What I would like to do is try to form a bridge
between the identification of problems and issues in
waterfront use and what Sea Grant Programs can
do about them. I think it's useful to quickly review
what Sea Grant is and what its charter is. Without
going into a detailed history of Sea Grant, suffice it
to say that we were created to focus our activity on
marine and coastal resources, their use, develop-
ment and conservation, and their management; and
to do this for national, regional and local benefit.
We were to achieve this goal through an integrated
university program of research activities, education-
al programs, and advisory services modeled on the
land grant cooperative extension model, to do for
marine resources what land grant colleges had done
for agriculture. We're therefore not easily labeled as
an environmental advocacy group or a development
oriented group. We're neutral. Our business is to
create and extend knowledge. I think, though that
its not too hard to reach into our charter and sug-
gest that there is a bias, and a legitimate one, that
we focus our activities with a marine orientation.
In the selection of those things that we do, the ones
that enhance the marine environment and the devel-
opment of marine resources are going to be favored
over those that are land-oriented.
I'd like to suggest that in looking at the water-
front and its development and utilization, there is a
context in which we must view this as a Sea Grant
Program. And that context is, I think, the manage-
ment of the entire urban coastal zone, and the un-
derstanding of how it functions. One quip that I
jotted down recently was that little local, regional
and national benefit is accomplished by moving the
central business district one block closer to the
water. All you've done is moved the community,
you haven't increased its economic output. I'll
come back to that point in a moment. Traditionally,
Sea Grant has worked with user groups that are
represented in this room today. A convenient way
of breaking these groups down is to think of them
as waterfront users, waterfront managers, water-
front developers, and waterfront landowners.
Waterfront users can be either producers or
consumers. The producers are the fishing fleets,
seafood processors, steamship lines, port authorities,
and marine services. They are using the waterfront
as a factor in the production of goods or services.
Waterfront consumers include boaters, anglers,

waterborne commuters, and tourists. We've tradi-
tionally worked with both these groups throughout
the Sea Grant network.
We've worked also with the waterfront manag-
ers at the local, state and federal levels. It seems
that we've got a good representation of local plan-
ning organizations at this workshop today. There
are also park boards, park departments, port districts
and port authorities that have important roles to
play in the management of urban waterfront re-
At the state level there are a variety of agencies
that regulate submerged lands, the use of the water
surface, the water column, and protect coastal wet-
land margins. There are also agencies at the state
level that foster development in the coastal zone,
including community development and tourism
promotion agencies. Consequently, there are many
potential institutional conflicts built-in to gov-
ernance of the urban coast which reflect the com-
plexities and conflicts found among competing uses
of the waterfront.
Waterfront developers have not been tradition-
ally a clientele of Sea Grant. I think this is perhaps
because of an absence of a demonstrable need for
Sea Grant services. Waterfront landowners, on the
other hand, have been a part of Sea Grant's clien-
tele from the perspective of public safety. Hurri-
cane preparedness, flood prevention, and erosion
control, are among subjects of interest to coastal
Let me return a moment to the point about
moving the central business district a block sea-
ward. It seems there was a thread that ran through
this morning's presentations, though each of us may
see a different thread. The thread I saw was that
there seems often to be a conflict between the
acquisition and maximization of private wealth and
the economic well being of an entire community.
Calculating the highest and best use of a waterfront
parcel from the point of view of the owner or po-
tential owner of that parcel may result in a different
type of use than if the calculation were being made
by an economic development entity looking at the
community as a whole. The private owner's choice
might be a high-rise condominium, while the com-
munity as a whole might choose a boulevard park.
It may be that there are very divergent kinds of
highest and best uses. I think that specific thread
ran through this morning's presentations.

Sea Grant has been financially strapped, as
have most other educational entities that rely on
federal funding sources, since 1979 or so. As our
dollar amount of grant awards diminished by what
has been calculated to be about 50 percent since
1980, Sea Grant institutions have been forced to
adopt very conservative portfolios of research in-
vestments. Competition for those dollars is fierce
around the country and the safest areas to put those
scarce research dollars are the more basic natural
sciences. We've seen a focus nationwide on the
natural science component of marine research, at
the expense of the social sciences, at the expense of
economics, geography, sociology, anthropology, and
other kinds of research. I would suggest that much
of the practical research and education that we
ought to be involved with to address these issues in
the urban coastal environment are going to come
from the social sciences. My prediction is that un-
less Sea Grant funding gets restored to where it
ought to be, we simply are not going to have the
funds available to do the sort of research that's
going to have utility for the city of Miami, the city
of Seattle, and small waterfront communities. That's
the bad news. The good news is that Sea Grant
directors recognize that, while this portfolio of
research proposals that get submitted for funding
every two years to Washington contains more and
more basic science and less and less applied social
science, the advisory services side of the program
contains all sorts of opportunities for applied re-
search. This research takes place under the umbrella
of educational and advisory activities and in fact
these activities go on. I think its been happening
nationally. So in the short run, I look to the non-
formal research activity of Sea Grant more than to
the formal research activity of Sea Grant for the
tools and techniques that we need to grapple with
problems such as waterfront use issues.
Another quip..... because the business is on the
coast, is it a coastal business? I'm not sure it is. Is
the McDonalds on the waterfront more deserving of
public support through a university than a marine
boatyard, or a port? I suggest that coastal business
needs to be defined quite carefully before we start
delivering services to businesses on the coast.
Let me return to the question of the educational
role for Sea Grant. I suggest that one of the primary
roles of Sea Grant institutions is to facilitate public
awareness. This is what this workshop is doing on
one scale. It can be done on another scale. Through
the advisory program in Washington and Oregon

we've done things like a four day symposium on
the future of the Seattle downtown waterfront. We
brought together experts from around the country,
local spokespersons for local interests, the public,
and the university. It was a stew, a simmering stew
of ideas, for four days and, at the end of that peri-
od, the panel of invited experts produced a docu-
ment that provided a lot of guidance for the city of
Seattle in its treatment of its downtown waterfront.
The following year, Sea Grant convened a harbor-
front development conference which picked up on
the earlier recommendations of the symposium's
panel and examined the economic feasibility of
some of them.
At a more modest scale, we've done waterfront
walks which enabled the public, with the help of
new fresh eyes, to revisit their waterfront. It may be
helpful to bring in a trained observer an urban
designer, architect, or planner who has worked with
waterfronts who can take a community group out,
walk them through the waterfront, and reintroduce
them to their own city, pointing out the opportuni-
ties, problems, and possibilities on the waterfront. It
is all part of facilitating public awareness. Some of
you will be familiar with the R/UDAT mod-
el(Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team) used
by the American Institute of Architects. This is a
good model that we've used and adapted to enhanc-
ing public awareness of the waterfront.
A second major educational role that Sea Grant
can play is informing public debate. Here we tread
that narrow line between advocacy and non-advoca-
cy. I have no problem with Sea Grant being an
advocate for principles that are drawn from the
literature, and from laws guiding waterfront devel-
opment. Enunciating those principles as ways to
guide comprehensive public policy decisions is
We can advocate revitalization. We can advo-
cate a consideration of water dependency and mari-
time commerce in planning and redevelopment
decisions. We can advocate the consideration of
traditional maritime industries and their conserva-
tion. We can advocate that government look at the
principle of containing urban development in order
to avoid spilling over into rural wetlands and other
resources of national and regional value. We can
advocate the consideration of enhancing and im-
proving public access, and historic conservation;
and, we can certainly advocate the use of compre-
hensive harborwide planning as a model for consid-
ering redevelopment of our urban waterfronts. We

can certainly too, advocate the consideration of
mitigation as development projects are considered. I
think we can enunciate principles that guide the
development of public policy without taking a nar-
row parochial view.
The second thing we can do to inform public
debate is to present approaches for waterfront plan-
ning. We've attempted to do this in the northwest
for smaller urban waterfronts the cities of 5,000
to 50,000 rather than the major metropolitan areas.
We present a model planning approach based on the
best experience of a lot of small cities. The model
is presented not as a panacea, but as a check list
of tools to ensure that issues are not overlooked and
opportunities are not neglected in the planning
Much has been said already about conflict
resolution techniques. I point out that there is noth-
ing wrong with conflict. It may be that under cer-
tain circumstances Sea Grant's role is to accentuate
and enhance conflict in order that the issues are
brought out and the range of debate narrowed down
to the real issues. If you try to eliminate conflict
too soon then you don't have that precise definition
of issues. I see conflict as an inevitable outcome of
human social intercourse. It's going to happen, and
we must use that conflict as a tool for getting at
truths about matters in the coastal zone.
A third educational role of Sea Grant is to
empower groups that may be ill-organized, unrepre-
sented, or perhaps unaware of the impact of deci-
sions upon their enterprises and upon their lives. In
Miami it is pretty clear from what I've heard this
morning that maritime industries are well organized
and are able to mount a defense against imprudent
projects, and planning decisions that may not be in
their best interests. In many communities that is not
the case. The fishing industry may be very frag-
mented because they're involved in different fisher-
ies that traditionally haven't worked well together.
It is a difficult problem to bring those constituencies
together to empower them to influence decisions
affecting their lives, but it's a crucial role. It is a
traditional role for Sea Grant. It is one that can tie
the marine field agent out there in the coastal coun-
ties into the waterfront development issue. That
agent working with the fishermen can help motivate
fishing groups to address these waterfront issues.
So there are roles for the traditional Sea Grant
Extension Agent in waterfront development and
waterfront land utilization decisions.

Another important area for Sea Grant, I think,
is to educate the actors in the debate about some
basic analytical tools. How do you analyze this
problem and determine whether its going to affect
you adversely or beneficially? I would suggest that
we have a special role to demystify and to simplify
without trivializing what can be complex approach-
es to policy analysis. I don't think you need to go
into great detail on input/output models or urban
economic base theory to get the point across that
there are industries in a urban economy which are
basic to that economy, and there are industries in
that economy which are there only because of the
population base. The first group of industries brings
new wealth into the community and the other group
of industries grows simply because of that wealth
being spent in the community. Through those sorts
of simple, direct well illustrated public policy analy-
sis tools, I think we can extend beyond our tradi-
tional constituency.
I think there is another thing Sea Grant can do,
and that is to recognize excellence. One of the most
successful projects that we've done in this area was
to conduct a coastal design awards program, back in
1981. We collaborated with the American Society
of Landscape Architects, the American Institute of
Architects, the American Society of Civil Engineers,
and our university architecture and urban planning
department, and mounted a statewide, juried, design
awards program. We recognized excellence in wa-
terfront design and used that as a teaching tool by
including in the criteria for excellence issues like
environmental quality, well mitigated projects, water
access, public benefit all those things that repre-
sent good urban coastal management. So, recogniz-
ing excellence and teaching it at the same time
turned out to be one of those "teachable moments"
in the parlance of extension. I think we had a bene-
ficial effect on how people perceived the quality of
both the natural and built environments of the coast-
al zone.
There are certainly many roles for Sea Grant
research. I suggest that one of them is monitoring
urban waterfront functions. That gets into modelling
urban shoreline systems, understanding how the
shoreline economy works, and monitoring some key
indicators of urban shoreline economic per-
formance. What's happening to port activity levels?
How many containers crossed the dock last year?
How many pounds of shellfish were landed? Let
me illustrate by example something that we've been

working on very recently in our program in Wash-
By looking at market conditions in the moor-
age industry, we can alert the industry, the planning
community, and others to conditions in that indus-
try. We could identify areas where more investment
is warranted or identify areas where the industry is
already over-capitalized. We've looked at seasonal
vacancies in marinas in some counties, compared to
other counties where the facilities are bursting at the
seams both winter and summer. This enables us to
develop economic indicators of performance. That
sort of monitoring function enables these traditional
marine constituencies to be responsive, more re-
sponsive perhaps, to market forces that are to their
advantage and to alert planners to problems the
industry is encountering.
I think that there is a lot of work that can be
done in looking at long term structural change in
the urban shoreline economy. What's happening to
the mix and kind of industries that we see in the
urban shoreline? What changes have taken place?
What can those changes tell us about the future?
There are ways in social science of measuring those
changes quite simply and effectively. These are not
the kind of projects that Sea Grant directors are
going to put a lot of research money into, but I
think they are the kind of projects that advisory
specialists can do.
We can be monitoring the effects of technologi-
cal change on the industries in the shoreline and the
way these industries consume shoreline land, and
water space. How is changing port technology or
shipping technology affecting the demand for cargo
handling areas? Where are those cargo handling
areas being located? Is there a geographic change
occurring? Ports have left downtown and gone to
the periphery. What's happening in international
trading patterns that speaks to the growth or de-
cline of ports in a region? What sort of demo-
graphic changes are occurring in the population that
uses the coastal zone for leisure and recreation?
What's happening to population growth or decline
that is going to have a long time effect on changing
the demand for coastal land.
Last but not least, I think Sea Grant should
continue to look at the changing supply of coastal
land. There are some major issues out there related
to global climate change and to long term erosion
and accretion patterns that actually affect the supply
of land in the urban coastal zone. This is a serious
issue, and it isn't the sort of thing that is going to

produce some results in time for next year's plan-
ning board to vote on. But it's the sort of activity
that can give early warning perhaps of some poten-
tial catastrophic changes impacting all coastal users.
I think we ought to be informing policy devel-
opment in the area of urban coastal resource man-
agement. We ought to be advocating a response to
resource conflicts that are based on long term re-
search activity. We need to look at the way in
which coastal vegetation is changing. Also we need
to look at the way in which marine water quality is
changing, for good or ill We ought to be informing
policy debate because of new knowledge that is
being generated. Universities, researchers, and advi-
sory staff are in a unique position of being close to
the main libraries and close to the researchers who
are creating the new knowledge that can be applied
to managing the urban coastal zone. I think we also
ought to be involved, again in the social science
sense, in looking at systematic ways in which val-
ues are changing and how those changing values
give rise to different sets of demands for the same
resources over time.

Working Group Summaries

Session 1
Identification of Alternative Policies Relating to
Waterfront Planning and Impediments to Effective
Implementation (Summarist: Wes Hoaglund, City
of Titusville, Community Development and Plan-
ning Division)

There are a variety of ways in which the public
may influence waterfront utilization. Special use
zoning, tax incentives, and public acquisition pro-
grams are examples of policy tools that are de-
scribed in the planning literature and that have been
used by local governments in Florida and other
states to implement waterfront planning objectives.
However, in any given circumstance the choice or
range of choices available to local jurisdictions may
be limited by legal, budgetary, or political accept-
ability. The objective of this working group is to:
1. focus on the three or four policy tools that may
be most effective in accomplishing waterfront
planning objectives,
2. identify the obstacles to effective implementa-
tion of the policy tools, and
3. identify potential strategies for overcoming the
obstacle to effective waterfront planning.

The group discussed the whole spectrum of
issues. What is waterfront? What really is needed
on the waterfront? How should we look at protect-
ing it? We determined that there was indeed a
public purpose to provide a continuing working
waterfront where one has historically existed. Not
all communities have an industrial related water-
front and, therefore, it isn't necessarily typical of all
communities. But where there is that need, we felt
there definitely should be something. Because some
of us have a planner's background we immediately
looked to the zoning aspect. We came up with a
policy that says that in most jurisdictions where
there is a need for water dependent industrial uses
(including commercial fishing), a waterfront area
of sufficient size should be zoned for only those
The water dependent industrial zones should be
designated in these areas that have the least near
term conversion to retail/office/residential potential.
It was deemed important, as we examine waterfront
property and envision water dependent industrial
properties, that special note is taken of the conver-

sion potential. If an area is selected that is likely to
have development pressures, elected officials are
likely to rezone it to a higher use for the obvious
reason that it increases the tax base. So when look-
ing at the working waterfront, try to pick the least
attractive area for alternate uses. By doing so, you
could perpetuate the long term viability of the ma-
rine industrial zone for whatever that long term may
be. Then we suggested the local jurisdiction should
consider the deferral of a percentage of annual real
estate taxes and that all deferred taxes and interest
accrued thereon should be due and payable upon the
granting of a rezoning request. All uses which are
not water dependent industrial uses should not be
permitted in these zones and non-conforming uses
existing at the time of designation should not be
eligible for a tax deferral and should be assessed for
tax purposes based on the prior zoning. We were
not sure if that's totally legal, but I'm sure that
there is some way to create such a mechanism
which could act as a market force to give noncon-
forming leases an incentive to migrate out. The
property could then be converted to a water depen-
dent use which would take advantage of the tax
deferral and solidify the industrial zone.
As a long term goal (except in the water depen-
dent industrial and single family zoning districts)
public access should be provided along all water-
front property. There is the opposite side of the
spectrum which suggests that public access should
be restricted to publicly owned parts..-if the public
doesn't own the parcel it shouldn't be allowed free
access to the waterfront. I'm a bit more liberal than
that. I suggest that where the industrial uses present
safety problems we should restrict public access.
And where single family residences abut the water
and have private dockage, then those should be
areas where we don't necessarily invite the pub-
lic. From this liberal standpoint, everything else
should be publicly accessible. The population will
continue to grow and as it does we need places to
put them.
Several tools were discussed in addition to
zoning and tax abatement. We talked about tax
increment financing, creating a district, and financ-
ing improvements with an increased tax base. Other
tools include a planning advisory service and the
Urban Land Institute. Both have excellent resources
in terms of information. You can go to both of
these organizations and they will give you a wealth
of information from dozens of perspectives. So you
don't have to reinvent the wheel. It's out there in

many forms already. Also, we talked about public
acquisitions, easements, donations with life estates,
leasebacks and transferrable development rights
(TDR). Those in the planning profession who have
heard a lot about TDR's know that in most cases
they don't work because there isn't a ready market
for the right. But we didn't want to leave it out
because there are cases where it has worked, but
it's a very limited tool because it's a very limited
Obstacles to implementing policies include lack
of public education. Getting people to understand
the value of the waterfront, public uses of the wa-
terfront, and industrial uses of the waterfront are
important. We also identified the need to have three
distinct zoning districts. One of them would be
water dependent industrial, another one water de-
pendent recreational, and we thought that probably
shipping would be a third. As the case in Miami
seems to be indicating, the market value of water-
front property for shipping might be assessed at
such a high level that if we allowed it into the
water dependent industrial zoning district, shipping
would displace the other water dependent uses that
we are trying to protect. So there might be a need
to have shipping as a separate and distinct zoning
category. Another impediment is obviously some-
thing that we see far too often and that's corrupt
deal making. We don't know how you thwart that
but it is indeed an impediment.

In today's market probably the biggest impedi-
ment to policy implementation is funding. It is
difficult for those of us who are out there trying to
put projects together today to find a lender who is
willing to add a real estate project to their portfo-
lio. Another impediment is special interest groups.
You can define those however the local circum-
stances dictate but you always have a vocal minori-
ty who has a tendency to color issues to make them
look as if they're either very pro or very anti to
their particular interest. That's a public education
problem, or a council education problem, if you
We ended up looking at research topics for Sea
Grant. One of these would be examining enabling
legislation for what has been referred to as blue
belting for purposes of tax deferral. We also need to
have more facts. For example, is shipping indeed a
high enough revenue generating operation that it
does need a special category apart from water de-
pendent industrial? Economics drives everything
and if we're trying to protect those commercial
fishers and other water dependent businesses that
serve those people on the water, we need to make
sure market forces out there will not drive them out
even though legislation is passed to protect them.

Session 2
Factors Influencing the Pattern and Rate of
Conversion Between Current and Future Uses of the
Waterfront (Summarist: Charles Adams, Florida
Sea Grant, University of Florida)
Waterfront property may be used to support a
wide variety of residential, recreational, and com-
mercial activities. The conversion of waterfront
property from one activity to another, particularly
from water dependent or what may be viewed as
"traditional" to nonwater dependent or "nontradi-
tional" uses, has prompted concern and a call to
action among industry and citizens interest groups.
What is observed in this process is the act of con-
verting land from one use to another. What are not
observed are the underlying factors that influence or
encourage waterfront land use change. The objec-
tive of the working group is to identify the social
and economic factors influencing waterfront land
use change in Florida.

Our task was to identify factors that are influ-
encing the pattern and the rate of change between
current and future uses of the waterfront. Similarly,
what are the factors that are affecting the rate of
change between the water dependent and the non-
water dependent uses of the waterfront around the
state? We realize there is feedback that might exist
between some of these factors. In other words, they
are occurring simultaneously. They may be having a
simultaneous influence in the decision making pro-
cess related to the waterfront.
The first factor we identified is local taxation
and revenue generation related to existing water
dependent uses. A major issue discussed relates to a
small, family-owned marina. It may become en-
croached upon on either side by high rise condo-
miniums, for example, or dockominiums. This
encroachment may have an effect on property-value
appraisals if allowed by the existing zoning ordi-
nance. Such encroachment may have an effect on
the appraisal such that the marina's property tax
would be bid, up which could, in turn have an
effect on their financial viability. In fact, this reval-
uation of properties is one of the major motivations
behind the blue belting concept, which is designed
to preserve actual use in the face of pressure to
converting to what is perceived as the best use. The
group identified this as a problem, although we felt

that it may be more of a factor in terms of redevel-
opment decisions as opposed to initial development.
A second factor identified is the basic financial
viability of these industries as they currently exist.
Empirical work done by the Florida Sea Grant
Program has evaluated rates of return on small,
family-owned, private marinas. Low rates of return
to owner equity suggest these firms may very well
be making a financially sound decision to sell out.
Small-scale commercial seafood processing facilities
are becoming less and less profitable for a number
of reasons. Some of these firms may very well
make a sound financial decision to sell out to a
nonwater dependent use if the current zoning ordi-
nance allows them to do that. The lack of marketing
and financial innovation can play a role in this
decision. There may be opportunities to get into
different markets, such as value-added processing.
There may be other ways to enhance the profitabili-
ty of the business by horizontally or vertically inte-
grating the operation. Maybe there are sources of
financing that haven't been exhausted yet. The
possibility exists that they have not been innovative
enough to address some of these profit enhancing
possibilities. Therefore, a lack of innovation in
terms of seeking alternative financial support or in
terms of seeking new markets for products, may
decrease the level of profitability in the face of
factors that are driving profit margins down. Ad-
dressing these issues may reduce the firm's vulnera-
bility to property tax changes.
The third area discussed was the changing demo-
graphics, which can be manifested as a changing
sets of demands being exerted on the waterfront. If
the growth rate of the Florida population continues
unabated, Florida is projected to be the third or
fourth most populous state in the nation by the year
2000. Allegedly 80 percent of all this population
growth is going to occur in the coastal communities
of the state and a changing set of demographics will
occur in many areas. Those changing demographics
are going to create a changing set of demands for
the goods and services offered by the waterfront
industry. This will likely have considerable influ-
ence on how that waterfront is going to be used. A
changing population, therefore, will certainly be a
motivating factor behind some of the decisions
being made regarding what shows up in the water-
front. In some cases an evolving coastal population
may bring about change at such a rate that it can
overpower the decision making processes concern-
ing waterfront use. The sheer volume of people in

one demographic group may actively overpower the
political processes in their favor.
In terms of demand, it has been observed that
we are moving from a manufacturing or production-
based industry to a service-based industry. That
can have an impact on what shows up on the wa-
terfront. A community may feel they need to have
an office, retail, restaurant complex on the water-
front instead of that commercial seafood offloading
facility which has been there for the past 40 or 50
years. Related to this, changing ownership patterns,
coupled with the possibility of increased numbers of
absentee owners in a coastal community, could
manifest itself as an increased lack of understanding
of some of the traditional water dependent indus-
tries. These absentee owners may become more
powerful in the local political decision making
process, but not have the appreciation for traditional
water dependent industries. These interests may
exert considerable influence in the local decision
making process, making it more difficult to retain
some of these traditional waterfront industries in the
local communities.
The fourth factor discussed was the unintended
effect on waterfront development due to indirectly
related policies and regulatory decisions. An exam-
ple given was the dramatically increased awareness
of environmental concerns in Florida which has
promulgated decisions to try to save manatees. The
statewide moratorium on marina sighting may have
an effect on the rate of change in waterfront de-
velopment that we might see in certain areas, spe-
cifically in terms of sighting new marinas. Another
issue was the lagged effect of zoning policies that
were put in place several years back. In the Florida
Keys, there exists very restrictive historical zoning
policies which dictate that properties within a cer-
tain zoning district have to be water dependent.
What if someone in that zoning district wants to get
out of that water dependent industry, yet is restrict

ed from doing that? Is that a result of lack of fore-
sight when that zoning policy was established?
Maybe there should be an attempt now to make
current and proposed zoning districts for waterfront
properties more flexible to allow people who want
to make a sound financial decision a chance to get
out and to convert over. Would such flexibility
endanger the cohesiveness of a working waterfront?
Unintended effects from federal policies might
also have an impact on water dependent usage. For
example, the effectiveness of the CBI (Caribbean
Basin Initiative) policy might have an impact in
terms of increasing the shipping that will be occur-
ring in certain port facilities. Providing centers for
trade between Caribbean countries may increase the
facility needs for certain ports. The importance of
international markets is changing. This will have an
effect on existing port facilities as we become more
dependent on imported products and local commu-
nities attempt to tap into world trade. This involve-
ment is going to change the demands on our exist-
ing maritime and nonmaritime port facilities, which
may affect the rate of change occurring on the
waterfront, particularly in maritime ports of entry.
The cultural attributes of these water dependent
industries could affect some of the waterfront relat-
ed decisions going on in local communities. For
example, the commercial fishing industry allegedly
has difficulty getting organized and gaining the
"ear" of the policy making bodies at the state and
community levels. It has been suggested that the
decision making process has ignored their interests.
If they became better organized locally, their inter-
ests may have been reflected to a greater extent in
that decision making process. The inclusion of the
interests of any such traditional water-dependent
industry may have a dramatic effect on the future
mix of industries on the local waterfront.

Session 3
Objectives of Waterfront and Coastal Communi-
ty Planning (Summarist, Eric Thunberg, University
of Florida).

Public planning processes are rarely conducted
for a single purpose or objective. In most instances
communities are concerned with a variety of social
and economic objectives that may be complementa-
ry but are often competitive. Planning decisions are
often made (explicitly or implicitly) on objectives.
Waterfront land can support a variety of activities
each of which may have different implications for
community planning objectives. The objective of
this working group is to:
1. identify the principle objectives of coastal com-
munities as they relate to the use of their water-
front resources,
2. identify the effect on those planning objectives
of water dependent, nonwater dependent, and
mixed uses of waterfront land,
3. note and highlight differences between planning
objectives of rural and urban coastal communi-
ties, and
4. compare and contrast the planning objectives of
communities that have highly diversified water-
front industries with those that are less diversi-

Our group was charged with the task of identi-
fying how community planning objectives might
influence the rate, pattern, and decision making
process regarding how waterfront areas are used.
When we were organizing this workshop this was
an area of particular interest to myself. I had hoped
to be able to elicit a broad range of social, environ-
mental and economic planning objectives associated
with waterfront land use and allocation. However, it
became relatively obvious that such broadly defined
objectives are not particularly well articulated. Per-
haps it is because these objectives may not be a part
of conscious decision making processes.
The overriding theme of our session was the
need for community education or educational assis-
tance to help communities develop a waterfront plan
that would be by the community and for the com-
munity. This suggests, perhaps, a fundamental dif-
ference from a model of planning in which commu-
nities would solicit bids for development of public

lands and then choose whatever seems to be the
best plan. What our group suggested as being an
alternative might be to get the community together
and then have the community decide what it wants,
how to assess what the different alternatives are,
and what the different opportunities might be. Once
a plan is selected, find that group, consultant or
developer, that is most capable of delivering the
chosen plan. This is a different model of planning
that is actually implemented in some areas but may
not be being used in others.
There are several elements that would go into an
education program designed to provide planning
assistance. One element would be how to conduct a
simple inventory of current uses of the waterfront,
how does the waterfront contribute to the local
economy, and what is its contribution to the com-
munity fabric. The second educational need is, how
to identify waterfront opportunities. Third is identi-
fication of waterfront alternatives. What are the
alternative uses that waterfront land can be put
relative to the alternatives that currently exist?
Then there is a need for educational programs to
assess these alternatives and assist in implementa-
tion strategies for the chosen or selected plan.
There are some other things we talked about and
one of them is the need for public awareness pro-
grams to describe the comprehensive planning pro-
cess and how citizens can participate in that pro-
cess. Some of these things may have been done in
some areas by other public agencies, but there was
a perceived need for Sea Grant to do some work-
shops or mailings to increase the awareness of the
comprehensive planning process and how individual
citizens living in various communities can affect
that process and be an active participant in it
Other public awareness needs that were discussed
included how to go about making the public aware
of what the waterfront is and its value to the econo-
my. Economic assessment, situation and outlook
reports for water oriented and other coastal land
uses were discussed.
In the state right now we have something called
the Florida Aquacultural Regulatory Sourcebook.
The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Ser-
vices has commissioned this particular sourcebook
which lists each statute, the agency responsible for
overseeing that statute and what individuals are
affected by the particular regulation. It was suggest-
ed that a regulatory sourcebook for those involved
in coastal land use might be of some help. This is
something that may be consistent with the tradition-

al role of Sea Grant Extension as an information
clearing house. Additionally there are a variety of
different publications, federal, state, and local that
provide information on innovations in other areas
throughout the country. The Waterfront Center
publication Waterfront World is an example of a
source of that kind of information. In some instanc-
es, Sea Grant could be involved in identifying what
information sources are out there, and how to get
them. Along those lines, one of the suggestions was
that the Sea Grant publications mail distribution list
needs to be revised to include people such as indus-
try groups, planning groups and development and
consulting groups that may not be on the mailing
list now.

Another topic of discussion was development of
a transactions matrix of coastal economy and infra-
structure needs. Such a matrix would quantify the
relationships between waterfront alternatives and the
infrastructure needs and ancillary services that each
of those different alternatives would require. The
matrix would be useful so that when evaluating a
specific development, all the other things that hap-
pen exterior to the development itself but may
influence the entire community as a whole, can be

Session 4
Assessing Social, Cultural, and Environmental
Tradeoffs and Uncertainties Related to Waterfront
Uses (Summarist: Linda Lampl, T.A. Herbert and

In many instances the financial consequences of
waterfront planning or decisions to grant permits or
easements affecting waterfront land use can be
documented. However, waterfront land use deci-
sions also have consequences for social, cultural,
and environmental resources that are intangible or
difficult to measure. Quite often waterfront planning
decisions must be made in which tradeoffs between
financial or economic gains must be weighed
against social and environmental losses. In some
instances these losses may be minimal and need
little consideration while in others the social and
environmental losses may be quite large. In the
latter case decision makers must rely on public
hearings, university research, or hired consultants,
or some combination of the three to identify the
social and environmental consequences of alterna-
tive policy actions. The objective of this working
group is to:
1. identify the principle social, cultural, and envi-
ronmental tradeoffs most often encountered in
waterfront land use decision making,
2. identify the principle strategies or methods that
decision makers require or use most often in
eliciting or quantifying the tradeoffs between
economic gains and social or environmental
3. identify the principle research, information, and
analytical tools that would provide assistance in
waterfront land use decision making.

This group came up with a list of topics in ad-
dressing the cultural, social, and environmental
tradeoffs, that we thought would be of interest and
attempted to focus on three or four of those. We
discussed the various kinds of access, without limit-
ing ourselves to waterfront access. We addressed
the accessibility of people who could make deci-
sions, who wanted information, or who could get
information. In terms of waterfront access or water
access itself, we identified pedestrian access, public
access, classification by water dependent industry,

and access to products from the water or those who
fish in the water.
We also talked about what are client groups
needs relative to waterfront utilization. Is anyone
really interested or is it us who are interested. In
terms of needs assessment, we are not thinking just
simply of what we perceive is needed but actually
going out to people and finding out what they need.
We thought of the public as a client group. We
also thought of elected officials as a user group
because they would be using information. The term
accessible was introduced. We were thinking about
accessibility of decision makers, but that was dis-
cussed in terms of timing. Timing is an important
issue in that it has to do with where elected officials
are in terms of the budget and where they are in
terms of their reelection. Those are factors that we
thought should be considered in dealing with local
officials concerning waterfront issues.
The group also decided that there was a value
assessment problem. Research should address what
is a higher and best use for whom and what are the
various values that are actually attached to that
across user groups. Decision makers can then focus
on what is the highest and best use for those who
need access to the waterfront.
We had another thought in terms of timing.
This addresses why decision makers are in such a
hurry. Society itself sometimes seems to be in a
hurry regarding the waterfront. It may take a lot
longer to generate the conversation and ideas need-
ed to parlay these various user groups. It may take
longer to get their ideas instead of just those of us
that have access to these kinds of forums on a
routine basis.
This leads us to our real bottom line which is
what Sea Grant can do to actually work out some
kind of a facilitating process. Perhaps Sea Grant
could set up not only these types of conferences
which have a face to face type of interchange, but
also set up smaller groups of people on a regular
on-going basis, not just when you get to a crisis
situation. There should be some kind of regular
process set up and maintained and perhaps the
responsibility for that could be Sea Grant. There
are people who do not have access to this type of
forum. They need to get their ideas heard, some of
which are things that we haven't thought of, such as
a value that might be different for someone who is
already developing their waterfront. now. Those
kinds of ideas need to at least be discussed before it
gets to be a crisis situation.

Session 5
Current and Alternative Forms and Strategies for
Mediating Conflict Between Competing Uses of the
Waterfront (Summarist: Bob Goodwin, Washington
State Sea Grant).

In instances where proposed waterfront land use
changes displace "traditional" marine industries or
challenge deeply held public perceptions about the
appropriate uses of waterfront areas the potential for
conflict between current and proposed waterfront
uses and users exists. Quite often the usual avenues
for conflict resolution are through a public hearings
process or through the legal system. In these in-
stances the claimants to waterfront land use are
placed in an adversarial position where a "winner
takes all" outcome is sought. However, there may
be alternative institutions or forums for negotiation
or conflict resolution that may yield preferable
outcomes from the perspective of the conflicting
parties and the public. The objective of this working
group is to:
1. identify the potential sources and interest groups
that are likely to come into conflict over water-
front land use,
2. identify the existing mechanisms for conflict
resolution and assess their success,
3. identify alternative forums for conflict resolution
that remove the adversarial barriers that often
result from public hearing or legal processes.

This group looked at sources of conflict and
ways of resolving conflict, both traditional and
nontraditional. We tapped into some very deep
thinking and very strong thoughts, emotional ques-
tions about governments, about accessibility to
decision making, and about forums in which deci-
sion are made. There was a general consensus in
our group that the existing system was strained to
the hilt and was barely working. So there was the
sense that we are being overwhelmed by growth,
overwhelmed by scale, and that the system is be-
coming unmanageable. Our discussion tapped into
that underlying frustration. There is a sense that the
institutionalization of conflict resolution was a bad
thing. This is because what we really ought to be
doing is exercising self restraint in our behavior
such that the imposition of regulation would be

We talked about a continuum of conflict resolu-
tion which starts off with war as a way of resolv-
ing conflict, extending through systems of law and
regulation, and at the other end of the spectrum is
self restraint. There is also a sense of realism that it
is very difficult to rely on things like self restraint
when you have massive urban systems that present
an enormous and overwhelming scale of problems.
In one sense we were bemoaning the state of affairs
and wishing that things were simpler, and wishing
to go back to small communities that were more
A common tool for conflict resolution is the use
of hearings. Often, however, the hearings process
tended to exacerbate differences rather than bring
people together. The hearing process provides an
opportunity for grandstanding, provides an opportu-
nity for hyperbole, exaggerated problems taking
extreme positions on both sides such that conflicts
become more difficult, rather than moving towards
resolution. But the present forms of conflict resolu-
tion as they pertain to waterfront resource issues,
such as zoning and reliance upon law enforcement
as a way to enforce behavior and resolve conflicts,
is a recognition that you can't hire enough "water
cops" to keep everyone well behaved. There was a
feeling that there are alternatives to these traditional
conflict resolutions systems. Tools such as media-
tion, arbitration, bringing in an ombudsman perhaps,
hearings examiners or hearings masters were sug-
gested as other ways of dealing with conflict. The
idea surfaced that you needed a fair neutral party to
examine the issue and arrive at a decision --- sort of
a Solomon-like person.
Constraints on waterfront resource development
were felt to embody some notion of carrying capac-
ity and that conflicts could be resolved by adopting
some commonly perceived carrying capacity limits,
such that somehow there might be a technological
or a scientific fix. If you knew what those carrying
capacity limits were, they may contain an ecological
constraint that would keep you from having to
resort to regulation, laws, etc. There would be limits
imposed by commonly accepted carrying capacity
limits. A feeling existed that universities could do a
lot to examine how those carrying capacities are
measured and what they might be.
Florida, in particular has become attractive to
very wealthy, very successful people in their retire-
ment years. These people are accustomed to win-
ning. They do not take defeat kindly and where you
have a group dominated by successful strong willed

people who are used to winning then the hearings
process becomes war. That exacerbates the problem
of using the hearings as a way to resolve conflict.
There was general bemoaning about the "not in my
back yard" self serving testimony and the distortion
of science to make a point.
We got to an interesting juncture this morning, I
think, in regards to formulating a model of the
problem of conflict. The culprit of the waterfront
resource is personified by those who wish to protect
that waterfront environment in a strongly pro-envi-
ronment, pro-protection, pro-conservation position,
as opposed to management. There are the typical
resource users services provided to us, the boat
manufacturers, the marinas, marine services that
provide services to the waterfront user, whether it
would be the boater or the person who eats on the
waterfront, whatever. There are several parties that
are involved in the conflict. Part of the conflict has
to do with the perceptions of rights and degree of
rights to the resource. Are these rights really equal?
Do people who have just arrived in the state have
the same kind of rights as the people who have
lived here all their lives? Does this longevity play
any role in the way conflicts are resolved? It might
be similar to the western water rights-issue- first in
time, first in right. If you got to a stream first and
started extracting water, that's a senior right and
you get rights to the water. The subject who comes
later doesn't get as much.
There is a notion too, of balancing the insults to
the environment. That is, if I'm a boater and I'm
told that my outboard motor oil is leaking into the
water or that I pump my head in the wrong place,
I'm creating a problem. Yet the city is allowed to
dump storm water runoff with numerous heavy
metals and the hydro carbons in the same water.
That Ain't Fair! So there is this idea of balancing
the insults to the environment. There's a conflict
that's created because of unequaled treatment of the
problem by the different participants in the creation
of the same problem.
A problem also exists in identifying the spokes-
person who speaks for what interests and how do
they speak for those interests and why do they have
more legitimacy than someone else? That's a prob-
lem with resolving conflict. I might add that there is
always the overlooked constituency that doesn't
emerge until the settlement is just being reached.
Somebody pops up and says, "Wait a minute, you
have to consider this."

Let me return to the question of what Sea Grant
is. Sea Grant, and the university system that houses
it, was perceived as a neutral and trustworthy orga-
nization that therefore had perhaps some strengths
that agencies and other governmental bodies were
not perceived to have. I'd like to think that we are
trustworthy. I'd really like to think that the govern-
ment is trustworthy too. There is the feeling that
Sea Grant research could focus on the processes of
conflict resolution and the identification of altema-
tive models of conflict resolution. A viable role
may be to look for what works elsewhere and try to
find out why some techniques do not work. Sea
Grant would help determine what is wrong with
what does not work and generate a menu of con-
flict resolution techniques. There was a feeling that
we could be the neutral critic. There was a feeling
that we could be involved in conferences and work-
shops like these that might examine resource issues
on a statewide basis. An example, is the manatee
problem, which kept coming up in our group. What
role will Sea Grant play or not play in beginning to
resolve, in an acceptable fashion, statewide marine
resource problems?

Conclusions and Recommendations

The workshop proceedings provide a basis for a
plan of action for Florida Sea Grant Marine Adviso-
ry and marine research programs for addressing
problems of waterfront development and utilization
in Florida. The principle issues identified by the
workshop participants are listed below. For each
issue recommendations for Florida Sea Grant action
are made. These recommendations are based on the
workshop proceedings, our own impressions of
potential waterfront programs, as well as informal
contacts. The emphasis below is on those issues and
potential actions that Sea Grant is uniquely qualified
and able to provide. In some instances programs
may address more than one issue and wherever
relevant, such program overlaps are highlighted.

1. Maintaining a Working Waterfront: That
there is a value whether social, cultural, heritage,
or economic, of maintaining a working water-
front was a recurrent theme throughout the
workshop. There was a general recognition that
certain activities require a waterfront location for
their mere operational existence and that there is
a certain value in assuring their continued opera-
tion. At issue, however, is what marine indus-
tries should be protected and how?

Recommended Actions:

A. Land Use Policy Alternatives: Sea Grant
should review the various land use policies
that may be available to municipalities to
regulate waterfront land use. Waterfront
zoning, development rights transfers, land
conservancies and other policies that have
been used in waterfront and agricultural
land use control programs. Each policy
should be described and specific examples
given on their use in Florida and else-
where. Special emphasis should be placed
on describing implementation strategies for
each policy and the potential problems that
may be created.

B. Enabling Legislation for Marine Blue Belting:
Blue belting for marine industries would
provide a tax incentive for maintaining coast-
al land in a marine oriented use. Sea Grant
should conduct a legal review of existing

legislation regarding tax incentive based
land use controls and establish the legal basis for
extending such programs to waterfront land.

C. Revise Sea Grant Mailing List: There was a
general consensus that Sea Grant publications
and other forms of information could be of
use to individuals beyond its traditional client
base. These individuals are members of the
planning profession and representatives of
citizens organizations involved in coastal land
use and environmental issues. Expansion of
Sea Grants mailing list would expand its
client base and would make Sea Grant's
research and marine advisory resources avail-
able to individuals involved in waterfront
planning and decision making.

D. Information Clearing House: Sea Grant has
traditionally filled the role of disseminator of
information and as a clearing house for ma-
rine related information. Although there are a
number of unmet research and information
needs, there are a number of sources of infor-
mation that address waterfront planning is-
sues. Sea Grant should identify these sources
and incorporate them into its own information
dissemination programs.

2. Conflict Over Highest and Best Use of Wa-
terfront Land: Conflict arises over water-
front land use whenever there is a disagree-
ment over the highest and best use of land.
Such conflict usually does not hinge on a
disagreement over the highest use as this has
come to be associated with the market value
of land. Rather, conflict arises over what is
the best use of the land to whom. In cases
such as these the market value of land may
be of little consequence. Public debate over
the best use of waterfront land is going to be
an evolutionary process and will continue as
long as such decisions must be made. Sea
Grant's role in that process will be one of
information provider and promoter of vehicles
for informed debate.

Recommended Actions:

A. Identification of Market Failures: Divergenc-
es between highest and best use of waterfront
land may be argued to be a consequence of
market failure. Market failures may arise
under a number of circumstances all of which
tend to result in a divergence between private
and social values of waterfront land. Water-
front land may provide a range of services
that may be valued by the community for
which the landowner can extract no payment.
Since these values are not reflected in land
markets the social value of certain uses of
land are not considered in the decision mak-
ing processes of private landowners. There-
fore, Sea Grant should identify the potential
sources of market failure and identify public
policies or opportunities for institution build-
ing to resolve waterfront land use conflicts.
Additionally, wherever possible Sea Grant
should identify and measure the social costs
and benefits of land use planning alternatives.

B. Promotion of Forums for Community Deci-
sion Making: There was a perception among
workshop participants that the waterfront
development decision making process was
being captured by waterfront developers.
Consequently, decisions regarding the use of
waterfront land may not be consistent with
lager community planning objectives. Sea
Grant should provide a vehicle through which
land use plans can be formulated through
community initiative and support. Although
the Comprehensive Planning Act provides the

framework within which all Florida communities
must make land use decisions smaller communities
may lack the resources or expertise to take advan-
tage of all provisions of the Act. In developing
programs directed toward community planning Sea
Grant should target its efforts toward smaller com-

C. Alternative Financing for Public Projects: In
order to keep land in its "best" use some
form of public expenditure may be required.
Fee simple purchase of waterfront land, for
example, requires the raising of public reve-
nues. Sea Grant should develop information
materials targeted for public agencies describ-
ing alternative financing alternatives for pub-
lic projects.

3. Environmental and Community Infrastruc-
ture Carrying Capacity: The notion of carry-
ing capacity implies that there are limits beyond
which environmental quality or community
infrastructure become stressed. For environmen-
tal resources degradations in environmental
quality may result in lower physical output of
fishery products as well as diminished intrinsic
enjoyment of the environment. Similarly, at any
given time a community has a limited capacity
to provide fire and police protection, road re-
pairs, and other municipal services. Any given
use for land may have different effects on envi-
ronmental and infrastructure carrying capacity.
Therefore, there is a need for assessing the link
between waterfront land use and environmental
and community infrastructure carrying capacity.

Recommended Actions:

A. Develop Guidelines for Setting Environmental
Quality Standards: Before determining whe-
ther environmental carrying capacity has been
exceeded one must have some standard or
criterion by which environmental quality can
be measured. Although certain minimum
criteria for environmental quality are mandat-
ed by under the Comprehensive Planning Act
some communities may wish to set higher
environmental quality objectives. Sea Grant
should develop information programs
designed to assist local communities to deter-
mine appropriate environmental quality objec-

B. Assist in Developing Community Infrastruc-
ture Needs Assessment: Any given land use
will require a specific level and set of de-
mands for community infrastructure services.
Therefore, any given plan for waterfront land
use will have different implications for com-
munity infrastructure needs. A Sea Grant
research and information program should be
developed to identify community infrastruc-
ture needs for different land use alternatives.
Such a program would establish the technical
relationships between specific uses of land
and intensity of use and the community infra-
structure needs in order to support that activi-

C. Develop Strategies for Citizen Participation in
Formation of Comprehensive Plans: Each
county must prepare a coastal element for its
County Comprehensive Plan. Contained in
the coastal element must be consideration of
existing land uses, projections for future land
use, and provisions for dealing with water
dependent industries. The workshop partici-
pants indicated that there was a lack of un-
derstanding of the purpose of the comprehen-
sive planning process and the opportunities
for citizen involvement in that process.
Therefore, Sea Grant should develop
information programs targeted for individual
citizens describing the comprehensive
planning process and citizen involvement.
Such information programs should be directed
toward the coastal element of the plan.

4. Public Access: Access to the waterfront, wheth-
er visual, physical, or economic, was a recurrent
theme throughout the workshop proceedings.
Because waterfront land provides the link to the
water's edge access is a natural point of conflict
among waterfront user groups. Conflict may
arise whenever a private landowner's activities
may restrict public access to the water. There-
fore, Sea Grant should develop information
programs directed toward public awareness of
strategies for increasing public access to the

Recommended Actions:

A. Awareness Programs for Waterfront Develop-
ers: Conflict over waterfront access seem to
arise over development or redevelopment of
waterfront land. Such conflict may be miti-
gated through information programs targeted
for developers of waterfront land to increase
private awareness of the need for and initia-
tive in providing public access. Sea Grant
should develop public access education pro-
grams to fill this need.

B. Access Oriented Waterfront Project Design:
Public access can be enhanced through appro-
priate project design. Sea Grant should devel-
op guidelines for access oriented waterfront
project designs. Such a program could be
accomplished through a review of existing
access oriented waterfront design projects.
Each project could then be evaluated select-
ing the best design characteristics and make
recommendations for proposed development

C. Forums for User Group Interaction: Conflict
over waterfront access will continue unabated
for the foreseeable future. However, conflict
may be minimized through regular interaction
among the various waterfront user groups on
access related issues. Sea Grant should foster
a dialogue between waterfront user groups to
increase the awareness and understanding of
one another's needs.

5. Matching community needs with waterfront
planning and development: Although excep-
tions can be found, the overall pattern of Flor-
ida's waterfront utilization possesses a history of

"piece-meal" planning without careful consider-
ation of the effects proposed specific projects
and general development might have on the local
community needs related to the waterfront.
These current and future community needs
should be, where possible, reflected in water-
front development activities.

Recommended Actions:

A. Waterfront Development and Regulatory
Sourcebook: A useful tool for developers
and interested citizen groups alike would be a
reference containing listings and annotations
of current waterfront development/utilization
regulations in Florida. This might contain
current state statutes, local ordinances, public
trust doctrine reviews, concurrency con-
straints, appropriate agencies, etc. which
might apply to waterfront develop-
ment/redevelopment in Florida on a region,
county, or municipality basis. The Sea Grant
document could also contain a list of the
various waterfront/waterway advisory groups
in the state. This may effectively serve as a
"practitioners guide" to waterfront use in

B. Increase Citizen Awareness of County Com-
prehensive Planning Process: Citizens need
to be made aware of the county comprehen-
sive planning process and the role they can
play in the development and periodic amend-
ing of the coastal element of the plan for
their county. This can be an effective avenue
for local community needs to be incorporated
into local waterfront related development
activities. Florida Sea Grant could be instru-
mental in organizing educational workshops
for interested citizens to be more knowledge-
able of the comprehensive planning process.

C. Describe Methodology for Economic, Envi-
ronmental, and Social Impact Analysis:
Local planners and citizen groups need to
identify and evaluate the various impacts to
the community of proposed waterfront devel-
opment projects. A document that would
describe the appropriate methodologies for
measuring the economic, environmental, and
social impacts and tradeoffs of proposed
projects was identified as a potentially useful

tool. Such a document would allow a more
complete understanding of how consistent a
proposed project would be with community

6. Economic Role of the Waterfront in the Com-
munity: A general lack of understanding exists
as to the role the waterfront plays in the social,
cultural, and economic functioning of coastal
communities in Florida. Without a clear under-
standing of these roles, local planners may inad-
vertently ignore nonmarket values of importance
to the community as decisions regarding the
waterfront are made.

Recommended Actions:

A. Public Awareness Workshops and Programs:
The general public may need to be better
educated as to the various roles a working
waterfront plays in the local community.
These roles can be of an economic, cultural,
or aesthetic nature. Workshops, riverwalks,
and other forms of public awareness pro-
grams could be held that would provide a
better understanding of the role played by the
waterfront in the community.

B. Monitor Waterfront Use and Industry Activi-
ty: The importance of the waterfront to the
functioning of the coastal community can be
better understood if the actual commercial
and non-commercial use is monitored. Estab-
lishment of a monitoring effort that would
data-base various waterfront-related activities
(i.e. number of marinas and slips, seafood
offloading/processing facilities, commercial
and recreational vessel/boats, shipyards, etc.)
would provide an accurate and on-going
measure of community use and dependence
on waterfront resources.

7. Evolving Demand for Waterfront-Related
Goods and Services: The demographic nature
of Florida's coastal population is changing. As a
result, the demand for the various goods and
services provided by waterfront-related industries
is also changing. The mix of industries found on
Florida's waterfront is evolving in response. An
understanding of the factors causing this change
in industry mix, and the associated changes in


coastal land use patterns, will help state, region-
al, and local planners make more accurate pro-
jections of future waterfront needs.

Recommended Actions:

A. Assess Water-Dependent Industry Competi-
tiveness: Measuring how financially competi-
tive traditional water-dependent businesses
(i.e. marinas, shipyards, seafood establish-
ments, etc.) are with water-enhanced busi-
nesses (i.e. office complexes, restaurants, etc.)
will help local planners better anticipate and
understand the tradeoffs which will result in
allowing change to occur in the current mix
of waterfront industries. This need will be-
come even more acute as the demands exert-
ed by the community for waterfront goods
and services evolve more toward a non-water-
dependent dominated market. A study could
be conducted that would measure relative
financial performance of key water-dependent
and non-water-dependent businesses.

B. Monitoring Waterfront Land Use Patterns:
As the demands for waterfront goods and
services has changed, so has the nature of
waterfront land use. A need exists for data
describing the use of waterfront land parcels,
and how the use of these properties have
changed in recent years. A model could be
developed that would identify key determi-
nants of waterfront land use and provide
projections on future waterfront land use
patterns in Florida. Such a model would
incorporate local demand for a wide range of
waterfront-related goods and services.

8. Waterfront Policy Debate and Conflict Reso-
lution: The "appropriate" use of the waterfront
has become a contentious issue for several coast-
al communities in Florida. In some cases, the
discussion has evolved from debate to conflict.
The development of the initial land use plan for
Monroe County provides an example of how
separate and distinct user groups can enter into
strong adversarial roles in an attempt to deter-
mine future local waterfront use. In one sense,
conflict can be productive. As noted in the pre-
sentation by Bob Goodwin, conflict can serve to
better define issues and help focus the true deci-
sion objectives. In many cases, however, conflict

can be counterproductive and argumentative,
serving to stalemate a decision while consuming
limited time and financial resources. Communi-
ties should investigate alternative methods of
clearly defining the issues, assessing the trade-
offs, and arriving at a decision regarding local
waterfront use in an equitable and efficacious

Recommended Actions:

A. Identify Alternative Forums For Conflict
Resolution: A useful process would to identi-
fy alternative forums for conflict resolution
that remove the adversarial barriers that is
often exacerbated by the public hearings
process. Alternatives that could be examined
include mediation, arbitration, hearings exam-
iners and masters, or utilizing an ombudsman.
Case studies could be performed, through
literature review or site visit, as comparative
analyses of experiences in other communities,
states, or regions. These case studies could
focus on communities that have successfully
structured a waterfront use plan and assess
the public choice methods utilized.

B. Provide For On-Going Waterfront Use Dis-
cussion: Proactive on-going interchange
among waterfront user groups could be en-
couraged before disparate viewpoints reach
crisis proportions. This may be accomplished
through the organization of local waterfront
advisory groups, such as have been initiated
in several coastal communities in Florida.
These groups could exchange information and
experiences regarding waterfront land use
decision-making processes.

Waterfront Development and Utilization in Florida
October 25-26, 1990

List of Attendees

Chuck Adams, Marine Econ. Specialist
1170 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
(904) 392-4991

John A. Brennan
Miami Waterfront Board
2336 Swanson Avenue
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
(305) 856-6373

Richard E. Briggs, Exec. Dir.
The Marine Council
615 S.W. 2nd Ave.
Miami, FL 33130

Leo Cooper
City Fish Company-Hog Key Boat Barn
Marathon, FL 33050
(305) 743-5545

Michael English
Hillsborough County/City
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 1110
Tampa, FL 33601
(813) 224-0070

Jamie Hart, Supervisor
of Marine Facilities
City of Ft. Lauderdale
2 South New River Dirve, East
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(305) 761-5423

Frank Herhold, Exec. Director
Marine Industries Association
1875 Commercial Blvd., Suite 110
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309-3015
(305) 491-7016

Ted Babun
Miami River Marine Group
P.O. Box 561954
Miami, FL 33256
(305) 635-7216

Mike Brescher, Manager
Grandon Marina
4000 Grandon Blvd.
Key Biscayne, FL 33149
(305) 238-9174

Marion Clarke, Asst. Dean
Marine and Coastal Programs
117 Newins-Ziegler Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
(904) 392-1837

Beth Dunlop
Miami Herald
1 Herald Plaza
Miami, Fl 33132
(305) 376-3660

Jeff Fisher, Marine Agent
Marine Extension Service
P.O. Box 2545
Public Service Bldg., North Wing
Key West, FL 33040
(305) 294-4641 Ext. 160

Glenn Heath
Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council
P.O. Box 3455
North Ft. Myers, FL 33918-3455
(813) 995-4282

Wes Hoaglund
City of Titusville
Community Dev. Planning Div.
P.O. Box 2806
Titusville, FL 32781
(407) 269-4400

Bob Johns, Assistant Director
Planning and Zoning Dept.
City of Punta Gorda
900 W. Henry St.
Punta Gorda, FL 33950
(813) 639-1924

Dick Konover
Morris Realty, Inc./City of Punta Gorda
2825 Tamiami Trail
Punta Gorda, FL 33950
(813) 637-1090

Linda Lampl
T.A. Herbert and Associates
P.O. Box 10129
Tallahassee, FL 32032-2129
(904) 222-4634

Dr. Sarah Meltzoff
Chair/Associate Professor
Marine Affairs Division
RSMAS University of Miami
4600 Richenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33149
(305) 361-4012

Bill Myers
Kimball-Lloyd, Inc.
1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
(407) 562-4112

Roslyn Phillips
Jacksonville Downtown Dev. Auth.
128 E. Forsyth St.
Jacksonville, FL 32302
(904) 630-1913

Don Pybas, Marine Agent
Rosenstiel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33149
(305) 361-4017

Gloria Sajgo
Lee County Planning Division
Community Development
P.O. Box 398
Ft. Myers, FL 33902
(813) 335-2443

Sallye Jude
Miami River Business Assoc.
118 S.W. South River Drive
Miami, FL 33130
(305) 667-3233
(305) 325-0045

Cliff Kunde
Kunde, Sprecher, Yaskin & Assoc.
9765 S.W. 184th St.
Miami, FL 33150
(305) 238-8090

Frank Lawlor, Marine Agent
Marine Extension Service
North County Courthouse, RM 101
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
(407) 626-6900 Ext. 211

Joyce Meyers
City of Miami Planning Dept.
275 N.W. 2nd Street
Miami, FL 33128
(305) 579-6086

Ivan Pettit
Florida D.E.R.
1900 Congress Ave., Suite A
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
(407) 433-2650

Deborah Pack-Preston
Lee County Planning Division
1831 Hendry St., P.O. Box 398
Ft. Myers, FL 33902
(813) 335-2196

David Ray, Executive Director
Greater Miami Marine Association
P.O. Box 431251
South Miami, FL 33243-1251
(305) 238-9174

Ty Symroski
Monroe County, FL. Planning Dept.
Wing III
5825 Junior College Road, West
Key West, FL 33040
(305) 292-4400

Mark Taylor, Vice President
Organized Fishermen of Florida
3906 29th Ave., W.
Bradenton, FL 34205
(813) 755-8418

Maria Villanueva
Univ. of Miami
Boating Research Center
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33149
(305) 361-4012

James Wellington
Miami Waterfront Advisory Board
P.O. Box 144561
Coral Gables, FL 33114-4561
(305) 443-1967

Bob Goodwin
Washington Sea Grant
Marine Advisory Program
Institute for Marine Studies, HF-05
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
(206) 685-2452

Eric Thunberg, Assistant Professor
Food and Resoruce Economics
1170 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
(904) 392-4991

Gerry Ward
Consultant Engineer
Coastal & Environment
P.O. Box 10441
Riviera Beach, FL 33419
(407) 863-1215

Richard Whipple
Land Use Consultant
10330 S.W. 199th Ave.
Miami, FL 33157
(305) 238-7657

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs