Citation
A Look at Florida Growth: Population and Density Changes of Metropolitan Statistical Areas 1990-2010

Material Information

Title:
A Look at Florida Growth: Population and Density Changes of Metropolitan Statistical Areas 1990-2010
Creator:
Quintana, Laura
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Censuses ( jstor )
Cities ( jstor )
Counties ( jstor )
Governing laws clause ( jstor )
Metropolitan statistical areas ( jstor )
Population density ( jstor )
Population dynamics ( jstor )
Population geography ( jstor )
Population growth ( jstor )
Population size ( jstor )
Economics
Florida
Political science
Population
City of Orlando ( local )
Genre:
Undergraduate Honors Thesis

Notes

Abstract:
This paper examines the history of rapid population growth in Florida, the growth management laws that were enacted in an attempt to control and direct development, and the mounting concerns over urban sprawl. It discusses the economic downturn in the mid-2000s and the impact on Florida’s growth and economic development. Using metropolitan statistical areas and data from the 1990, 2000, and 2010, U.S. Censuses, this paper analyzes population and density trends across the state of Florida in terms size and geographic location. Finally, it reviews the new political climate of the state and the Community Planning Act which dramatically revised the growth management system which had been in place since 1985. ( en )
General Note:
Awarded Bachelor of Arts; Graduated December 20, 2011 summa cum laude. Major: Geography
General Note:
College/School: College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
General Note:
Legacy honors title: Only abstract available from former Honors Program sponsored database.
General Note:
UF Honors Program sponosored database

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Laura Quintana. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires

Full Text

PAGE 1

1 GES OF METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS 1990 20 1 0 By LAURA E. QUINTANA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR T HE DEGREE OF BACHELORS OF ARTS IN GEOGRAPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Laura E. Quintana

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost I w ant to thank my advisor, Dr. Stephen Golant for his guidance and expertise I appreciate his contributions of time, ideas, and advice throughout this process. Without it, this paper would not have been written. I also thank Dr. Joann Mossa for her encouragement and for serving as a second reader of this work. I would not have chosen to write a thesis without her c ounsel. A cknowledg ment s Additionally I would like to thank the staff of the University of Florida Libraries, especially Ann Lindell at the Architecture and Fine Arts Library and Elizabeth Outler at the Legal Information Center. Both Ms. Lindell and Ms. Outer took the time to meet with me on a one on one basis and gave me valuable research tools Finally, I would like to thank my family, especially my parents, for showing in me the importance of education and for their unwavering support and encouragement throughout my life Thank you.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 5 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 6 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 7 CHAPTER 1 A Bri ef History ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8 Florida Population Growth ................................ ................................ ........................ 8 Growth Management Comes to Florida ................................ ................................ .. 1 0 Urban Sprawl ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1 2 2 A Closer Look ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1 5 The G reat Recession ................................ ................................ .............................. 1 5 Impact on Florida ................................ ................................ .............................. 1 6 Metropolitan Statistical Areas ................................ ................................ ................. 1 7 Definition and Locations ................................ ................................ ................... 1 8 3 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2 0 Change in Population for Metropolitan Statistical Areas 1990 20 1 0 ...................... 2 0 Change in Density of Metropolitan Statistical Areas 1990 20 1 0 ............................. 2 4 Trends in Density over T ime ................................ ................................ ............. 28 4 Where Florida is Headed ................................ ................................ ........................ 30 Rick Scott and the Community Planning Act ................................ ........................... 30 Final Thoughts ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 31 WORKS CITED ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 3 3

PAGE 5

5 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Counties in Florida ................................ ....... 1 8 3 1 Population Growth in Fl orida Metropolitan Statisti cal Areas 1990 201 0 ............. 2 3 3 2 Change in Density in Florida Metropolitan Statistical Areas 1990 2010 ............. 2 9 ALL POPULATION ESTIM ATES AND DATA, UNLES S OTHERWISE STATED, COMES FROM THE U.S. CEN SUS BUREAU. WWW.CENSUS.GOV

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Graph of g rowth Rates of the United States and Florida 1900 2000 .................... 8 2 1 m etropolitan s tatistical a reas and non incorporated counties ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 3 1 based on population ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2 0 3 2 based on population ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2 1 3 3 2000 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2 2 3 4 Map of the density change of Florida counties 1990 2010. ................................ 2 4 3 5 based on persons per square mile ................................ ................................ .... 27 3 6 2000 based on persons per square mile. ................................ ........................... 27 3 7 on persons per square mile. ................................ ................................ ............... 27 3 8 based on persons per square mile. ................................ ................................ .... 27

PAGE 7

7 ABSTRACT OF THESIS PRESENTED TO THE University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelors of Arts in Geography METROPOLITAN STATISTICALS AREAS 1990 2000 By Laura E. Quintana December 2011 Chair: Stephen Gol ant Second Reader: Joann Mossa Major: Bachelors of Arts in Geography This paper examines the history of rapid population growth in Florida, the growth management laws that were enacted in an attempt to control and direct development, and the mounting c oncerns over urban sprawl. It discusses the economic downturn in the mid and economic development Using metropolitan statistical areas and data from the 1990, 2000, and 2010, U.S. Censuses, this paper analyzes popu lation and density trends across the state of Florida in terms size and geographic location. Finally, it reviews the new political climate of the state and the Community Planning Act which dramatically revised the growth management system which had been in place since 1985.

PAGE 8

8 CHAPTER 1 A BRIEF HISTORY Florida Population Growth The 20 th Century marked a period of rapid growth and development for the state of Florida. At the start of the century Florida had a total population of 528,542 people of which appr oximately 80% lived in rural areas (United States Census Bureau, 1995) By 1970 the population stood at almost 7 million people had experienced a great shift in the geographic makeup with 80% of the population now i n urban areas (United States Census Burea u, 1995) The growth continued over the next thirty years later and by the turn of the century the population had again more than doubled. Though as a whole, the United States was experiencing robust population growth during the century, it alone cannot a three times the national average (see Table 1 1). There were, however, two important innovations that made Florida more accessible than ever before. First, Henry Ford created the automobile which soon pervad ed American culture and afforded more geographical freedom t han earlier transportation methods had allowed Secondly post World War II the Figure 1 1

PAGE 9

9 federal government passed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. This act, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhowe r, declared the interstate highway system a matter of national interest, and provided the means to complete some 41,000 of miles of planned interstate (Weingroff, 2006) Under this act, the government agreed to pay ninety percent of the cost and set aside 25 billion dollars from 1957 to 1969 to fund the project (Weingroff, Essential to the National Interest, 2006) As Americans took advantage of the advances in transportation, there was also a great influx of homeownership. The federal government began en couraging homeownership in the 19 3 0s through income tax benefits and the creation of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) which offered low interest rates and federally insured mortages (Chevan, 1989) Homeownership rates increased more dramatically w ith the return of the soilders from WWII, the baby boom, and post war economic upswing. From its inception to 1979 the FHA insured over 13 million loans (Chevan, 1989) This also marked a paradigm shift in the way Americans lived. They no longer had to l ive in central cities for access to job and services. Automobiles and improved roads provided the option to commute from the suburbs wh ere homes offered more square footage, yards, security, and a lower cost of living. As a result, suburbs grew by 144% dur ing the 1950s and 1960s (Baldassare, 1992) People did not just flee the cities for the immediate suburbs; many went looking for desirable places to live outside of their states and regions. Undeniably, Florida was an attractive destination with its growi ng economy mild climate, miles of coastline and abundance of other natural resources. As such, while Florida did experience out

PAGE 10

10 migration from its central cities the most of t hose residents remained in the state and an even great influx from interregion al migration as people moved in from other parts of the country (Berry & Dahmann, 1977) Migrants and Floridians alike clamored for the suburban lifestyle and single family home s Growth Management Comes to Florida In the 1960s an environmental movement swept the nation (Ben Zadok, The Ups and Downs of Florida Growth Policy, 1971 2008, 2009). A fter a 78% increase in total population from the 1950s (United States Census Bureau, 1995), the state of Florida was aware it needed to do something to protect the state s resources. As a result, in the early 1970s the state began to enact growth management laws as a means to direct growth, protect the environment, and establish land use guidelines. Th e s e laws would eventually grow in to one of the most comprehensiv e growth management laws in the country (Powell, 2000). T he 1972 legislative session passed four significant laws A t its center was the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 (F.S. §380.012 380.07, 1972) increased the regulation and planning requirements for large scale developments impacting more than one county (F.S. §380.06, 1972). It also allowed for the state to Keys, and subject those areas to intensive state oversight (F.S. §380.05, 1972). Combined with the Land Conservation Act of 1972, which allowed the state to buy lands deemed environmentally sensitive, the state had substantial conservation powers (Powell, 2000).

PAGE 11

11 Responding largely to rapid development and an ensuing water shortage in south resource to be managed in the public inte management districts known today (F.S. §373.069, 1972). Rounding out the quartile was the Florida State Comprehensive Planning Act of 1972 which required the growth (F.S. §186.001, 1972). These laws, while significant, targeted state and regional planning but largely ignored the role of local governments. At the time only half of local governments had any sort of land use controls and of those that did, very f ew incorporated comprehensive planning (Powell, 2000). The Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 required local governments to adopt a local comprehensive plan and capital improvement program to identify funding sources for future dev elopment ( F.S. Ch. 75 257, 1975 ). Continued rapid growth into the 1980s necessitated additional iterations of existing growth management laws. In 1982 Governor Bob Graham commissioned of the second Environmental Land Management Study (ELMS II) to review t he effectiveness of the environmental and land use legislation of the 1970s (Carriker R. 2006) The culmination of this study was the State and Regional Planning Act of 1984 which again mandated a state comprehensive plan and the Local Government Compre hensive Planning and Land Development Act of 1985 (Ch. 163, Part II, Florida Statutes ) more commonly known as the Growth Management Act of 1985 (Powell, 2000).

PAGE 12

12 The Growth Management Act (1985) was considered one of influential growth m (Ben Zadok, Consistency, Concurrency and Compact Development: Three Faces of Growth Management Implementation in Florida, 2005) It brought comprehensive plans into the forefront of the planning process as stat e regional, and local comprehensive plans were all obligatory (Carriker, 2006). Comprehensive plans are, in essence, involved documents which map out how a city, county, region, or state plans to grow. The Growth Management Act (1985) was unique in that it tied local regional, and state planning into an intergovernmental vertical consistency process (Carriker R. R., 2006). The local comprehensive plans had to be consistent with the goals and objects outlined in the more broad regional and state plans. The eleven stat e regional planning councils in turn, had to ensure the regional plans were in line with the state plan. Oversight authority was given to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) which was tasked to review local comprehensive plans and deem them One of the main objectives of the Growth Management Act and the creation of comprehensive plans was to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Urban Sprawl In the 1992s, r ule 9J 5 of the Florida Administrati ve Code defined urban sprawl as areas interspersed with generally low intensity or low (Rule 9J 5.003 (134) FAC) , has bee n around since the late 1930s and has steadily increased in prevalence and notoriety (Nechyba & Walsh, 2004) Urban sprawl has been identified as a contributing or driving factor to loss of farmlands

PAGE 13

13 and green space, increased air and water pollution, frac turing of neighborhoods, desecration of wildlife habitats, and even obesity (Sprawl Costs Us All: How Your Taxes Fuel Suburban Sprawl, 2000). It is a nationwide phenomenon but Florida may be particularly susceptible as the bulk of development occurred in the post automobile era. Most Florida cities were not built in a time that necessitated dense development to ensure people had access to their jobs and services ; they were built to accommodate the automobile. Urban sprawl can manifest itself in a number o f ways. It can be as simple as single family homes enveloping a once rural or agricultural landscape or it could be a fully planned community with its own downtown (Nechyba & Walsh, 2004). One of the most common which as the name suggests, is the emergence of a mini city outside of the established and decentralized metropolitan area (Godfrey, 1995). As populations grew and cities became more sprawling, it led to more people on the roads commuting longer distanc es That in turn led to i ncreased congestion air pollution, and use and dependency o n fossil fuels (Nechyba & Walsh, 2004) Sprawl has caused more far re aching consequences as well. The consumption of once open, green, spaces ha s a severe impact on wildli fe and wild life habitats Studies have demonstrat ed the devastating impact of urban sprawl on everything from cavity nesting birds (Blewett & Marzluff, 2005) to the American black bears (Lyons, 2005) to forest fragmentation and its effect on the wildlife population (Radeloff, Hammer, & Stewart, 2005). One such study done by Elizabeth Forys and Craig Allen, demonstrated the impact of sprawl on biodiversity by studying the ant fauna of the Florida Keys (2005).

PAGE 14

14 They discovered that sprawl not only increased the prevalence of non native species it also decrease d native species population s through both destruction of habitat and the introduction of new predators ( Forys & Allen, 2005). Another impor t ant aspect of sprawl is the tendency to encourage self segr egation, create pockets of poverty, and produce an unequal provision of goods and services ( Nechyba & Walsh, 2004). The suburbs are largely homogeneous The w ealthiest members of society have the most options as to where live. They are not limited by the c onstraints of housing prices or transportation costs. As such economic activity was drawn to the urban fringe with quality schools and services follow ing. This left much of the poor and disenfranchised in the city center. Exacerbating the situation is the statistical probability that the poor are also more likely to be non white (Nechyba & Walsh, 2004) This disconnect meant disproportionally white suburbs and clusters of poor, minorities often in the city center. It is not just the demographic or environ mental impacts of sprawl that are cause for concern. There is a lso a real, monetary cost associated with it. As urban areas expand so do infrastructure costs. It falls to the tax payers to fund the roads, sewer, water, and power to an ever growing area. S ervices such as schools, police, and hospitals have to be expanded at su b stan ti al cost. Sprawl is subsidized at the federal state, and local in a variety of ways, be it the 4 million miles of highways that were built from 1950 2000, or the incentives off ered to big box stores and housing developers (Sprawl Costs Us All: How Your Taxes Fuel Suburban Sprawl, 2000).

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 A CLOSER LOOK The Great Recession After a century of staggering growth, Florida and the rest of the nation w ere hit by a recessio n. Depression by some (Judis, 2011) While it may not have reached Great Depression standards, when measured in a peak to trough decline in real GDP it is the worst recession since 1947 (Lansing, 2011) According to the National Bureau of Economic Research it began in December 2007 (the National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010) but fundamentally it started with the housing bubble. Homeownership was still very much a part of th e American ideal going into the 21 st century. From the late 1 990s through the mid 2000s housing prices across the United States rose rapidly. From 2000 to 2005 prices increased an average of 50 percent, with some markets exceeding over a 100 percent incre ase (Smith & Smith, 2006) People invested i n homes with the expectation that housing prices would continue to rise at a meteoric rate and the fervor for homeownership grew (Case & Shiller, 2003) This combined with relatively low interest rates and lax le nding standards created a perfect stor m for house prices to rise to unprecedented levels (Lansing, 2011) When the projections, which lenders and investors alike based their repayment estimates failed to emerge it triggered an economic crisis (Lansing, 2 011) As the housing bubble began to deflate, risky lending practices were thrown into sharp relief. At its heart were subprime and near prime mortgages. The process behind their creation and manipulations by mortgage lenders too complex to detail here b ut in

PAGE 16

16 These mortgages target buyers with lower credit scores, s maller down payments, and limited income history (Mayer & Pence, 2008) To exacerbate the situation these lending practices also allowed for existing homeowners to refinance loans and withdraw equity from their homes which had appreciated in value under the inflated pricing (Mayer & Pence, 2008) Since these loans were considered riskier they also came with higher s ervice fees (Gerardi, Lehnert, Sherlund, & Willen, 2008) Often this would include an i a much higher rate (Gerardi, Lehnert, Sherlund, & Willen, 2008) When these rates adjust ed, borrowers found they could not afford the new payment and worse for many; their houses were worth less than the loan they held As a result, there was an influx of foreclosures in 2007 and 2008 (Gerardi, Lehnert, Sherlund, & Willen, 2008) All of the defaults negatively impacted the mortgage lenders and major banks that had over extended themselves and did not have the means to cover their losses. I n 2008 a massive $787 billion federal bailout began (Judis, 2011) Impact on Florida The reverberation s of this financial crisis were felt around the world and unquestionably in Florida. Tourism is an integral part of F As the economy as a whole began to slow down, people were left with less disposable income and were forced to tightened t heir economic belts. This translated into fewer people traveling t he state and their economic contributions were sorely missed. Even intrastate travel decreased as people chose to forgo vacations all together and stay home. The housing crisis also hit the state hard. As a whole, Florida had one of the fastest growing and inflated real estate markets in the country Additionally, many

PAGE 17

17 people owned second homes and/or investment properties in the state. The state was at the top of the nation for foreclosures and housing prices down 50 percent in some areas (Morgenson & Fabrikant, 2010) Unemployment followed and newspaper headlines across the state lamented the dire situation. The Sarasota Herald Tribune warned economy (Royse, 2 007). said the Orlando Sentinel in 2008 (Thomas, 2008). While the Tampa Bay Business Journal crowed a few months later, (Report: Florida's economy in sharp decline, 2008) A s stated in the St. Petersburg Times, it was clear that the Recession has arrived in Florida (Huntley, 2008). Metropolitan Statistical Areas T his paper will examine U.S. Census Data for the state of Florida from 1990 2000, and 2010 Using metropolitan st atistical areas (MSAs), it will compare the rate of population growth and density over the two decades by first looking at the population changes across the areas. Specifically it will look to see if the top quintile of MSAs shows distinct trends from the bottom quintile. It will also look at how the top and bottom As population is not an indication of density, s econdly, the paper will look to see how the MSAs align in terms of persons per square m ile It will look to highlight any patterns in geographic location or population size. It is anticipated substantial growth that both population and density have increased over time Though growth may have slowed to less than 30 percent in recent decades, it was still 24 percent from 1990 to 2000 and 1 8 percent the following

PAGE 18

18 population size, representative of millions of people. As such, this paper will focus on the varying growth between MSAs for indicators of patterns. Definition and Locations Metropolitan statistical areas are defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget. A MSA contains an urban core of 50,000 persons and a total metropolitan population of at least 100,000. At minimum, they consist of the county that contains the core but often expand to include adjacent counties that are socially and economically integrated into the urban core (Metropolitan and Micropolitan) As a geographic region with a population threshold and close economic ties throughout the area, MSAs are used by the U.S. Census Bureau and other Federal agenci es for statistical purposes. Though m etropolitan boundary definitions are revi sed after each decennial census, this paper will apply the 2010 geographic div isions uniformly across the data MSA County/Counties Cape Coral Fort Myers Lee Crestview Fort Walton Beach Destin Okaloosa Deltona Daytona Beach Ormond Beach Volusia Gainesville Alachua Gilchrist Jacksonville Baker Clay Duval Nassau St. Johns Lakeland Winter Haven Polk Miami Fort Lauderdale Pompano Beach Broward Miami Dade Palm Beach Naples Mar co Island Collier North Port Bradenton Sarasota Manatee Sarasota Ocala Marion Orlando Kissimmee Sanford Lake Orange Osceola Seminole Palm Bay Melbourne Titusville Brevard Palm Coast Flagler Panama City Lynn Haven Panama City Beach Bay Pensacola Ferry Pass Brent Escambia Santa Rosa Port St. Lucie Martin St. Lucie Punta Gorda Charlotte Sebastian Vero Beach Indian River Tallahassee Gadsden Jefferson Leon Wakulla Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater Hernando Hillsborou gh Pasco Pinellas Table 2 1: Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Counties in Florida

PAGE 19

19 to provide a constant point of comparison over the two decades. The refore the geographic area of each MSA area remains a constant to compare population and densities over time. Florida contains twenty areas, encompassing thirty nine o f the six ty seven counties in the state. The twenty eight remaining counties only contain 10 percent of the total state population but account for more than one third of the total land area. Figure 2 incorporated counties

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS Change in Population for Metropolitan Statistical Areas 1990 20 1 0 Florida has four metropolit an areas among the 40 largest in the country. Those 40 areas contain roughly half of the United States population. In the past two decades, t he largest five areas in the state have remained the same Miami Fort L auderdale Pompano Beach, Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater, Orlando Kissimmee Sanford, Jacksonville, and North Port Bradenton Sarasota Those five areas al one comprise more than 65 percent of the total state population Each of the largest MSAs contain of more than one county. With the exception of Orlando Kissimmee Sanford, they are located on the coast. The Orlando Kissimmee Sanford MSA is the third largest in the state and lies in the I 4 corridor. Interstate 4 connects the east and west coasts of the state and produces a high volume of activity and traffic which encourages growth in the area The average population growth for the top quintile was 23 percent from 1990 to 2000. This rate slowed to 16 percent from 2000 to 2010. This is mostly due t o the slowing of the growth rate from 23 Figur e 3 1

PAGE 21

21 percent to 11 percent in the largest MSA, Miami Ft. Lauderdale Pompano Beach. For both decades, Orlando Kissimmee Sanford was the fastest growing MSA in the top quintile, averaging over 30 percent While Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater experienced the slowest growth of the five it is important to note that the growth remained a constant 16 percent over both decades. In terms of population the area had not shown the strains of the recession by the 2010 Census. The smallest five MSAs in the state have also remained constant over the two decades. Each is comprised of a single county located on the coast, except for Ocala. Ocala is positioned centrally in the northern half of the state, directly off another major interstate, I 75 The average population growth for the bottom quintile was 24 percent from 1990 to 2000 and 18 percent from 2000 to 2010. In short, it was very similar to the growth of the top quintile. The smallest MSA in the state, Palm Coast, which is comprised solely of Flagler County on the northeast coast of the state, had the most significant population growth of all twenty MSAs over both decades. From 1990 to 2000 it grew 74 percent Figure 3 2

PAGE 22

22 and from 2000 to 2010 the population exploded further with a 92 percent increase. It was one of only four MSAs in the state to experience more population growth from 2000 to 2010 than the previous decade The middle two quintiles ave raged a population growth of 25 percent from 1990 to 2000 which slowed to 21percent i n the next 10 years. Crestview Fort Walton Beach Destin was the only MSA to experience single digit growth in either decade. Located in the panhandle of Florida, from 2000 to 2010 its growth s lowed by more than a third to 6 percent Overall the total popul ation growth for all of the MSAs was 23 percent from 1990 to 2000 and 18 percent from 2000 to 2010. Given the economic recession discussed earlier, the reduction of population growth over the first decade of the 21 st century is not unexpected. It is wor th noting, however, that the three other MSAs which experienced increased growth in the 2000s are the fifth, sixth, and seventh largest by population size. Though the populations of these counties are substantial, t heir land area does not appear overly large. Therefore, next this paper will look for a correlation between size and densi ty. Figure 3 3 Figure 3 3

PAGE 23

23 MSA by Population Size Population 1990 Growth 1990 2000 Population 2000 Growth 2000 2010 Population 2010 Top Quintile Miami Ft. Lauderdale Pompano Beach 4,056,100 23% 5,007,564 11% 5,564,635 Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater 2,067,959 16% 2,395,997 16% 2,783,243 Orlando Kissimmee Sanford 1,224,852 34% 1,644,561 30% 2,134,411 Jacksonville 925,213 21% 1,122,750 20% 1,345,596 N orth Port Bradenton Sarasota 489,483 21% 589,959 19% 702,281 Total Population 8,763,607 23% 10,760,831 16% 12,530,166 Middle MSAs Cape Coral Fort Myers 335,113 32% 440,888 40% 618,754 Port St. Lucie 345,004 31% 451,611 35% 609,087 Lakeland Winter H aven 405,382 19% 483,924 24% 602,095 Palm Bay Melbourne Titusville 398,978 19% 476,230 14% 543,376 Deltona Daytona Beach Ormond Beach 370,712 20% 443,343 12% 494,593 Pensacola Ferry Pass Brent 344,406 20% 412,153 9% 448,991 Tallahassee 259,096 24% 320,304 15% 367,413 Naples Marco Island 152,099 65% 251,377 28% 321,520 Gainesville 191,263 22% 232,392 14% 264,275 Crestview Fort Walton Beach Destin 143,776 19% 170,498 6% 180,822 Total Population 2,945,829 25% 3,682,720 21% 4,450,926 Bottom Qui ntile Panama City Lynn Haven Panama City Beach 126,994 17% 148,217 14% 168,852 Punta Gorda 110,975 28% 141,627 13% 159,978 Ocala 100,900 26% 126,731 15% 146,318 Sebastian Vero Beach 90,208 25% 112,947 22% 138,028 Palm Coast 28,701 74% 49,832 92% 95 ,696 Total Population 457,778 27% 579,354 22% 708,872 Total population for all MSAs 12,167,214 23% 15,022,905 18% 17,689,964 Florida 12,937,926 24% 15,982,378 18% 18,801,310 Table 3 1: Population Growth in Florida Metropolitan Statistical Areas 1990 through 2010

PAGE 24

24 Change in Density for Metropolitan Statistical Areas 1990 20 1 0 Overall the population density of Florida has increased and the data shows an increase in population density for each successive decade The population size of the state increased by almost 5 millio n people from 1990 to 2010 That translated into an increase in pe rsons per square mile from 240 to 351. Naturally the population density varies widely across the state. Generally, t he counties with the most persons per square mile are located on the coast and most often in the southern part of the state As a whole, t he northern part of the state and some of the interior counties are significantly les s dense. In both 1990 and 2000 the top and statistical areas were the same. The densest was Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater with over 1,000 persons per square mile, followed by Miami Ft. Lauderdale Pompano Beach, Orlando Kissimmee Sanford, Cape Coral Ft. Myers, and Palm Bay Melbourne. Figure 3 4: Density Change of Florida Counties 1990 2010

PAGE 25

25 The bottom quintile was comprised of Ocala, Gainesville, Tallahassee Naples Marco Island, and Pal m Coast, which despite an increase from 59 persons per square mile to more than 100, was still the least dense of all the MSAs. Clearly the MSAs like counties, encompass a large range of densities. The following decade did, however br ing a few changes. Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater remained on top followed by Miami Ft. Lauderdale Pompano Beach but Cape Coral Ft. Myers nudge ahead of Orlando Kissimmee Sanford with 789 persons per square mile. Palm Bay fell to the sixth slot with North Port Bradenton Sa rasota, which is now the fifth largest MSA by population size and density with 559 persons per square mile. There was more shuffling in the bottom quintile caused it to move up four positions on the density scale. Tallahassee ass umed its previous position at the least dense MSA statewide Crestview with a glacial increase in density from 2000 to 2010 of 7 percent comparatively speaking also appeared in the bottom quintile replacing Ocala. There was not a northern MSA was in the top five MSAs in 1990 2000 or 2010 Conspicuously absent is Jacksonville which holds a firm place as the fourth largest MSA based on population size as it has nearly twice the population of the next largest area currently North Port Bradenton Saras ota In terms of density, however, it is solidly in the middle of the pack, holding a position of eleventh or twelfth during the past two decades. The large population of over a million residents and the low population density suggest a s prawling geographi c area.

PAGE 26

26 The bottom five MSAs are located in the northern portion of the state with the exception of Naples Marco Island which is on the southwest coast. This may be a result of the 20 0,0 00 acre rural land stewardship area located in Collier County, the sin gle county that comprises the MSA (Creamer, 2011) Physically, a RLSA is a track of land of at least 10,000 acres, located outside of municipalities and establish urban service areas, designated in the comprehensive plans of each local government with juri sdiction (§163.3248 (5)) With a significant portion of the county set aside for conservation, that may explain the anomaly of this location having a relatively low person per acre density As was seen from the population perspective the least dense MSA s are general ly smaller in geographic size. T he Tallahassee MSA is the largest and contains four counties. The Tallahassee MSA is located in the midst of a number of counties with populations so small they do not meet the MSA thresholds. The city of Tallaha ssee as the state capital, however, creates a center of activity that has a powerful draw from the surrounding counties. T he densest MSAs are comprised of multiple counties, except for Cape Coral Ft. Myers. Lee County, which makes up the Cape Coral Ft. My ers MSA, was second only in increased density from 2000 to 2010. It became 44 percent denser and since 1990 has increased its person per square mile from 417 to 789. Though there are no absolutes in terms of geographic loca tion or population size, there is a substantial overlap between the largest MSAs in terms of population size and density.

PAGE 27

27 Figure 3 5 Figure 3 6 Figure 3 7 Figure 3 8 Figur e 3 6 Figure 3 8

PAGE 28

28 Trends in Density over Time Though it might be generalized the largest MSA s are more population dense, it is importan t to look at the trends in population density over the 1990 to 2000 time period. Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater, which was the most population dense during this time, also experienced the least increase in density at 25 percent. Conversely, the two least dense MSAs in 1990 and 2000, Palm Coast and Naples Marco Island experienced the most increase in density. In 1990 both had densities of less than 100 persons per rate was 233 percent. Though there were outliers, overall it appears that the smaller MSAs experienced the most increase in population density over this time period. The initially low population density thresholds and the continued rise in population of the state may have afforded an ideal growth opportunity for the smaller MSAs. The bigger MSA areas with already high densities had a slower rate of growth overall. In addition to Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater, Miami Ft. Lauderdale Pompano Beach was also in the bo ttom quintile of increased density from 2000 to 2010. Though size does appear to have played a factor there were regional trends as well The panhandle of the state experienced the least increase in density. After Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater, the thre e MSAs located in the panhandle, Crestview Fort Walton Beach Destin, Pensacola Ferry Pass Brent, and Panama City Lynn Haven Panama City Beach experienced the slowest growth from 1990 to 2000. Though not as obvious, the center of the state experienced stro ng growth throughout this period. Ocala, Orlando Kissimmee, Sanford, and Lakeland Winter Haven had increases in density of over 50 percent.

PAGE 29

29 Though this again demonstrates there is not a single characteristic that guarantees population or density growth, s maller MSAs did show a marked increase in density their larger counterparts in the last two decades The data also suggests density may be sensitive to regional trends. Table 3 2: Change in Density in Florida Metropolitan Statistical Areas 1990 2010 MSA People per square mile 1990 Increase in density 1990 2000 People per square mile 2000 Increase in density 2000 2010 People per square mile 2010 Increase in density 1990 2010 Cape Coral Fort Myers 417 32% 549 44% 789 89% Crestview Fort Walt on Beach Destin 154 19% 182 7% 194 27% Deltona Daytona Beach Ormond Beach 335 20% 402 12% 449 34% Gainesville 118 23% 145 14% 166 41% Jacksonville 214 22% 262 23% 321 50% Lakeland Winter Haven 216 19% 258 30% 335 55% Miami Fort Lauderdale Pompano Beac h 820 25% 1026 11% 1144 39% Naples Marco Island 75 65% 124 30% 161 114% North Port Bradenton Sarasota 386 20% 463 21% 559 45% Ocala 123 33% 164 28% 209 69% Orlando Kissim m ee Sanford 480 31% 631 25% 789 64% Palm Bay Melbourne Titusville 392 19% 468 14% 535 37% Palm Coast 59 74% 103 92% 197 233% Panama City Lynn Haven Panama City Beach 166 17% 194 15% 223 34% Pensacola Ferry Pass Brent 238 18% 280 8% 302 27% Port St. Lucie 222 27% 282 34% 377 70% Punta Gorda 160 28% 204 15% 235 47% Sebastian Vero B each 179 25% 224 22% 275 53% Tallahassee 103 23% 126 14% 145 41% Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater 1105 13% 1245 11% 1385 25% Florida 240 24% 297 18% 351 46%

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 4 WHERE FLORIDA IS HEA DED Rick Scott and t he Community Planning Act In 2011 Rick Scott became the 45 th Governor of the State of Florida. A conservative business man and CEO of Solantic Corporation, he came to office likening the state to a business vowing to create jobs, reduce the debt, and stimulate the economy (Scott, 2010) A big propon ent of privatization in late 2010 while speaking to the Florida Council of 100 and the ad (Scott, 2010) Less than six months into his term in office he signed HB 7207 into law. 139, Laws of Florida) re presented a sweeping growth management laws. It set aside the Growth Manage ment Act which had dictated growth management laws since 1985, by amending Chapter 163, Part II of the Florida Statues, in favor of increased local authority, and minimized state oversight (Shelley & Brodeen, 2011) The new act dissolved the Department o f Community Affairs (DCA) which provided oversight for growth management laws in the state, and created the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). With a 50 percent reduction in staff, the DEO in a greatly reduced role was re le gated to comment only on things ( § 163.3184(4)(h) ). Though the it is c lear, that state will be less involved the planning process going forward The act al so repeals Rule 9J 5, of the Florida Administrative Code which defined urban sprawl and listed identifying factors. Though a definition of sprawl was codified

PAGE 31

31 into the new act ( § 163.3164 (51)), it is more limited and does not include the idea of need. Un der Rule 9J 5, FAC a community was expected to show a need for a proposed development whether it be a shopping plaza or residential development. As such, one of the primary indicators of urban sprawl was a lack of demonstrated need ( Rule 9J 5.006 (g)(1), FAC ) while the new act has no such stipulation. Final Thoughts Though the merits and inefficiencies of the Growth Management Act are debated, there can be no doubt that the change to growth management laws in Florida will affect how the state grows. The next decade will be pivotal in terms of growth in Florida. Though the recession officially ended after 18 months in June 2009 (the National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010), the effects are still being felt. U ne mployment rates are high and foreclosure re cords continue to be set within the state The changes to the political climate and new growth management laws are too recent to have been tested. Only time will tell what e ffects these challenges and changes will have on the population growth and economy of the state going forward What seems to be clear, however, is that the relaxation in growth management laws could accelerate growth, particularly in the lower density areas. While the Florida economy would welcome increased economic activity and revenue population growth and even increased population density does not equal less urban sprawl. While, t his paper has shown metropolitan statistical areas as a useful tool to examine sweeping trends across the state they do not consist solely of urban spaces. All MSAs contain Overall it is clear that Florida continues to experience growth and it should strive to do so in a thoughtful and intelligent manner. The new Community Planning Ac t places

PAGE 32

32 much control in the hands of local government. While there are benefits to allowing those most invested in their community to determine its development path, many local governments also lack the resources and expertise a state backed system provid ed. The costs of haphazard growth for the sake of short term gains has far reaching environmental and economic consequences that should never be overlooked.

PAGE 33

33 Works Cited United States Census Bureau (1995, October). Retrieved November 26, 2011, from Urban and Rural Population: 1900 to 1990: http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt Sprawl Costs Us All: How Your Taxes Fuel Suburban Sprawl. (2000, Sprin g). Retrieved November 29, 2011, from Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report00/ List of Rural Counties. (2005, March 15). Retrieved November 29, 2011, from Florida Department of Heal th: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/workforce/ruralhealth/ruralhealthhome.html A Brief History of Administrative Government (2007, October 7). Retrieved November 1, 2011, fr om OMB watch: http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3461 Florida's Economic Growth in Peril. (2008, April 30). Miami Herald p. 27A. Report: Florida's economy in sharp decline. (2008, August 1). Tampa Bay Business Journal Administrative Law Research Tutorial (2010, August 6). Retrieved October 15, 2011, from Georgetown Law Library: http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/tutorials/admin/index.cfm the N ational Bureau of Economic Research (2010, September 20). Retrieved December 2, 2011, from Business Cycle Dating Committe, National Bureau of Economic Research: http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.ht ml State & County QuickFacts (2011, October 13). Retrieved November 29, 2011, from U.S. Census Bureau: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html Baldassare, M. (1992). Suburban Communities. Annual Review of Sociology, 18 475 494. Ben Zadok, E. (2005). Consistency, Concurrency and Compact Development: Three Faces of Growth Management Implementation in Florida. Urban Studies 2167 2190. Ben Zadok, E. (2009). The Ups and Downs o f Florida Growth Policy, 1971 2008. Planning, Practice & Research 379 387. Berry, B. J., & Dahmann, D. C. (1977, December). Population Redistribution in the United States in the 1970s. Population and Development Review, 3 (4), 443 471.

PAGE 34

34 Blewett, C. M., & Marzluff, J. M. (2005, August). Effects of Urban Sprawl on Snags and the Abundance and Productivity of Cavity Nesting Birds. The Condor, 107 (3), 678 693. Brown, A., Carrie, C., Frank, T., Haddow, K., Hitchings, B., Parry, S., et al. (1998). Sprawl: The Da rk Side of the American Dream Retrieved November 29, 2011, from Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/report.asp Carriker, R. (2006, August). Florida Growth Management: Public Participation and the Plan Amendment Process. Retrieved November 7, 2011, from University of Florida IFAS Extension: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe645 Carriker, R. R. (2006, July). Florida's Growth Manag ement Act: An Introduction and Overview. Retrieved September 30, 2011, from University of Florida IFAS Extension: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe643 Case, K. E., & Shiller, R. J. (2003). Is There a Bubble in the Housing Market? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2003 (2), 299 342. Chevan, A. (1989, May). The Growth of Home Ownership: 1940 1980. Demography, 26 (2), 249 266. Clouser, R. L., & Cothran, H. (2009, August). Issues at the Rural Urban Fringe: Florida' s Population Growth, 2004 2010. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from University of Florida IFAS Extension: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe567 Committee, Economic Affairs (2011). Final Bill Analysis. Creamer, J. (2 011, June 13). Will the Community Planning Act Revive Rural Land Stewardship? Retrieved November 10, 2011, from The Florida Land Environment: http://www.jacobtcremer .com/2011/06/will community planning act revive.html Forgey, M. (2011). Florida's Modern Planning History -In Brief. Planning 20 21. Forys, E. A., & Allen, C. R. (2005). The Impacts of Sprawl on Biodiversity: the Ant Fauna of the Lower Florida Keys. E cology and Society, 10 (1). Frequently Asked Questions (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2011, from Harvard School of Public Health: http://diversitydata.sph.harvard.edu/Faq.aspx#2 Gerardi, K., Lehnert, A., Sherlund, S. M., & Willen, P. (2008, Fall). Making Sense of the Subprime Crisis. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2008 69 145. Godfrey, B. J. (1995, October). Restructuring and Decentralization in a World City. Geographical Review, 85 ( 4), 436 457.

PAGE 35

35 Huntley, H. (2008, August 1). Recession has arrived in Florida, economists say. St. Petersburg Times Judis, J. B. (2011, October 6). Doom! The New Rebublic 13 17. Lansing, K. J. (2011, July 11). Gauging the Impact of the Great Recession. F ederal Reserve Bank of San Franciso Economic Letter, 2011 (21). Libaries, U. o. (2011, September 14). Florida Administrative Code. Retrieved September 19, 2011, from Legal Research Guides: http ://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/legalresearchguides Lyons, A. J. (2005). Activity Patterns of Urban American Black Bears in the San Gabriel Mountains of Southern California. Ursus, 16 (2), 255 262. Mayer, C., & Pence, K. (2008). Subprime Mortgages: What, Where, and to Whom? Federal Reserve Board Working Paper. Metropolitan and Micropolitan (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2011, from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/population/metro/ Morgenson, G., & Fabrikant, G. (2010, September 4). Florida's High Speed Answer to Foreclosure Mess. New York Times p. Business Day. Nechyba, T. J., & Walsh, R. P. (2004, Fall). Urban Sprawl. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18 (4), 177 200. Powell, D. L. (2000). Grow th Management: Florida's Past as Prologue for the Future. Florida state University Law Review 519 543. Radeloff, V. C., Hammer, R. B., & Stewart, S. I. (2005, June). Rural and Suburban Sprawl in the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and Its Relation to Fore st Fragmentation. Conservation Biology, 19 (3), 793 805. Royse, D. (2007, July 13). Clouds linger over Florida's economy. Sarasota Herald Tribune p. 3B. Scott, R. (2010, November 18). The State of Florida is Like a Lot of Companies: Big Problems, Great A ssets and Now a Plan. Delivered to the Florida Council of 100 Orlando, FL: Vital Speeches of the Day. Shelley, L. L., & Brodeen, K. (2011). Home Rule Redux: The Community Planning Act of 2011. Florida Bar Journal 49 54. Smith, M. H., & Smith, G. (2006 ). Bubble, Bubble, Where's the Housing Bubble? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2006 (1), 1 50.

PAGE 36

36 Thomas, M. (2008, March 25). South Florida's economy isn't so hot anymore. Orlando Sentinel p. Commentary. Weingroff, R. F. (2006, March/April). Essentia l to the National Interest. Public Roads, 69 (5). Weingroff, R. F. (2006, Jan/Feb). The Year of the Interstate. Public Roads, 69 (4). Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 9J 5.001, Purpose Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 9J 5.003, Definitions Laws o f Florida Community Planning Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Growth Policy; County and Municipal Planning; Land Development Regulations (H.B. 7207) (2011) Laws of Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act (Growth Management Act ) Chapter 163, Part II (1985) Laws of Florida Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 Ch. 380, §380.012 380.07 (1972) Laws of Florida Chapter 72 373, §373.069, Creation of Water Management Districts (1972) Law of Florida Chapter 72 380, §380.05, Areas of Critical State Concern (1972) Laws of Florida Chapter 72 380, §380.06, Developments of Regional Impact (1972) Laws of Florida Chapter 2011 163, §163.3184, Process for Adoption of Comprehensive Plan or Plan Amendment (2011) L aws of Florida Chapter 2011 163, §163.3248 Rural land stewardship areas (2011) Laws of Florida Ch 186, §186.001, Florida State Comprehensive Planning Act (1972) Laws of Florida, Ch. 75 257, The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act (1975)