Memo Re: State Integrated Policy Framework

Material Information

Memo Re: State Integrated Policy Framework


Subjects / Keywords:
City of Tampa ( local )
Regional planning ( jstor )
Governors ( jstor )
Spatial Coverage:
North America -- United States of America -- Florida


Jake Varn Collection - Memo Re: State Integrated Policy Framework (JDV Box 43)
General Note:
Box 18, Folder 1 ( Water Task Force - 1983 ), Item 27
Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.

Record Information

Source Institution:
Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location:
Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text


TO: Representative Ray Liberti, Chair
Select Committee on Growth Management
FROM: John M. DeGrove, Director
Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems
SUBJECT: State Integrated Policy Framework


There is no subject on which there is more agreement than the

need for a top to bottom and bottom to top integrated policy framework

that will provide the key guideposts for plan review and implementation

at the state, regional, and local levels. The failure to develop such a

policy framework to date rivals the anemic monitoring and enforcement

system as the most important weakness in the state's growth management

system. The past 10 years has seen many efforts, but little success,

in putting a workable policy framework in place within which all other

components of the state's growth management system can function.

A brief review of the status of developing plans and policies

at each level of government highlights the problem At the local level,

the LGCPA was enacted in 1975, and all but a handful of the state's

cities and counties now have plans in place. However, it is widely

agreed that these plans vary greatly in quality before there are no

clear regional or state substantive standards against which to review

the plans, nor does the law allow the ability to mandate the modification

of such plans even if such standards were in place. A first step has

been made, but a complete local system calls for review and approval of

local plans by the state (or regional) level for consistency with standards

drawn from regional and state plans and policies.


At the regional level, the failure to develop the comprehensive

regional policy plans mandated by the 1980 legislative session has meant

that there are no clear and directive regional standards adopted by rule

against which to review DRIs under Chapter 380, assess local comprehensive

plans, guide participation in critical area planning and management

efforts, and guide "A-95 type" reviews. Partly as a result of the failure

to develop CRP Plans, RPCs have found it hard, if not impossible, to

confine their DRI reviews to regional as opposed to local issues. The

development of CRP Plans and the standards that must come from those

plans will compliment the strengthening of Regional Planning Councils

recommended in another memo.

At the state level, the failure to develop plans, policies, and
standards to drive the state's growth management system is perhaps most

serious of all. Without standards at the state level, neither the

adequacy nor consistency of regional and local plans and policies can

be assured. The Mayor of Tampa noted in his testimony to the ELMS II

meeting in Tampa, February 23-24, 1983, that he did not feel that

Tampa's or any other local comprehensive plan meant very much because

they were not developed within the framework of state plans and policies

that were clear and directive. The State Comprehensive Plan completed

in 1978 certainly did not produce the policies from which standards could

be derived to direct the state, regional and local components of Florida's

growth management system. The current effort by the Office of Planning

and Budgeting to update the State Comprehensive Plan in the form of Policy

Guides will help, but will not be sufficient to provide the state component

of Florida's growth management system. To assure the development of state

goals, and the policies and standards that must be derived from those

goals to frame state, regional and local growth management decision making,

the following actions must be taken:

1. The legislature should adopt goals and objectives similar

in content and length to those proposed by Stroud and Abrams for the

Governor's Office in 1981. The proposals being developed by the Select

Committee on Growth Management are aimed at fulfilling this need.

2. A New State Structure

Stroud and Abrams reviewed a number of "models" that

might be used to implement the policy framework for Florida's growth

management system. The "civic model" described in their report seems

best suited to direct the further development of state policies and

standards, and to assure their reflection in regional and local policies

and plans. This approach would involve legislative authorization for a

State Growth Management Commission made up of citizen members appointed

by the Governor, with the Chair named by the Governor. It's location in

the state administrative structure for housekeeping purposes and its

staffing need to be decided. The primary function of such a Commission

would be to take the goals and objectives adopted by the legislature,

and flesh them out in the form of policy statements adopted by rule.

These policies would then be used to review and approve Comprehensive

Regional Policy Plans and Local Goverment Comprehensive Plans, the latter

directly or through Regional Planning Councils. The development of

policies to further the legislatively approved goals and objectives

might or might not be subject to further legislative review. An

appropriate link to the Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting would

be needed. This model is a version of the approach used successfully

by California, Oregon, Vermont, and North Carolina. It has been less

successful in Hawaii, and not at all successful in Colorado. It has the


important advantage of highlighting and pinpointing responsibility for

the on-going development and implementation of the state's integrated

policy framework as the key component of its growth management system.