By Chip Ross
City Commissioner, City of Fernandina Beach
Two separate but opposing points of view are emerging in our community. The character of the city depends on which group prevails.
The first group is the Better, Not Bigger group.
- They want development that prevents the overcrowding of the land and undue congestion of the population.
- They want development that reduces the potential for adverse impacts on the functions of wetlands, natural systems, habitats, tree canopy, water quality, shorelines, marine life and coastal resources.
- They want development that respects the fact that the city is on a barrier island, which has a finite capacity for building sites and the number of people who can live here. In many ways that capacity has been reached.
- They believe the current Land Development Code (LDC), if followed, will achieve those goals.
- They also believe more building sites lead to more congestion and a decrease in the quality of life.
- They believe real growth is about reaching full potential, not maximum size. It means progress, not excess; it is fueled by imagination, not sheer volume.
The second group is the Bigger is Better group.
- They want more building sites in the city.
- They believe more building sites make a town look “fresh.”
- They believe more buildings sites create an economic locomotive that benefits all.
- They believe more building sites provide opportunities for more jobs.
- They believe if the community is not growing, it is stagnating.
- They measure success in the number of new homes built.
- They are silent on how more building sites leads to less congestion and increased quality of life.
- They view the current Land Development Code problematic to new development and needs to be changed immediately to allow more building sites.
As a community we are at a crossroads of which view will prevail.
At least three members of the current City Commission are proposing changes to the Land Development Code to allow development of additional building sites. If approved, the number of allowable building sites in the city will potentially dramatically increase.
Quality of life matters. Choose Better, Not Bigger.
I choose Better!
There are many things we need to keep in mind in making this decision. Here is a small sample:
We need to remember where we live. On a barrier island, this must drive policy.
Thanks, Chip! Issues explained simply and directly.
As I read it, Better, Not Bigger = no development. Just say so.
Stagnation has consequences as age and use takes a toll on structures.
Further, the rights of property owners must be protected–after all they pay
taxes on their land and must be allowed to improve it within reason-not by solely by public opinion.
The dicotomy proposed here is a false one. Better can, and must, include “bigger”–how
this is accomplished is the real issue–not either or.
Better does not have to include bigger. That is a myth we’ve all been raised and educated to believe in our culture. There is plenty of research to demonstrate how communities stay fresh and improve themselves so that they are highly attractive without getting bigger.
Yes, those who want to develop have rights. But so do their neighbors. It is the welfare of the entire community that should drive community policies. On a barrier island, that needs to be driven by the nature of the location and the hazards it faces. Those who are elected to office bear the responsibility of educating themselves and making the decisions that are best for the community. How they go down in history will be determined by the results.
For the love of God – stop misrepresenting Better, Not Bigger! They are not saying “no development” or attempting to deny anyone’s private property rights. They are FOR smart, sustainable growth based on the parameters that are a well-established part of our current Comp/LDC plans. They are FOR development that fosters resiliency of our city and our barrier island. It is our dedication to resiliency that will provide us sustainability during future storm seasons, keeps our city flood ratings positive and thus, city flood insurance costs low. Failure to do the right thing on this issue will cost the individual city taxpayers more long-term in disaster mitigation, insurance costs and rebuilding over time. News flash: “build out” is coming to our city (and to the island) without fail! As it approaches we can either do things that preserve and enhance what we have and love about our city or we can pack the place like sardines in a tin and be left to wallow in the oil as those who proposed the changes & benefit from them drive off into the sunset with their Bigger fists full of cash – laughing all the way…
Read the commentary more carefully–the words matter.
They do say no development–full stop.
There must be a fair and equitable balance that respects all rights.
The analysis presented declares that any development, by definition is “bigger”, and therefore bad.
That is not reasonable and not fair–owners and their neighbors must find a way to coexist.
The commentary presented does not seem to offer a solution–unfortunately.
I think you read a different piece than the rest of us. I reread it several times to give you the benefit of the doubt. But what primarily stuck out in at least the first three bullet points were the starting words of, “They want development”. And continuing thru the bullet points I never got the impression “better” was suggesting a full stop on development. Nor could I find anywhere within the piece that encouraged the trampling of “rights of property owners”.
But since we’re here, just because one has “property owner rights”, doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t limitations that go along with those rights. It’s not a free for all. Any of the rights we enjoy as citizens comes with some form of guardrails.
So if we want to have an open, honest discussion about development, as you point out, of “better or bigger”, let’s at least not misrepresent what’s been written. That makes for a poor starter.
No misrepresentation-“more building sites lead to more congestion and a decrease in the quality of life”, “In many ways that capacity has been reached”–what kind of development meets the criteria laid out?
Let’s have that open discussion about development–absent exaggeration, hyperbole, and histrionics.
I live on this island and don’t want unbridled development, where do you draw the line?
Can restrictions in the LDC be loosened without unleashing a flood of development?
The subject is more emotional than factual which clouds the discussion.
It is not one against another–as this commentary proposes–that just creates animosity.
Let’s all keep an open mind and not create division–work together for the benefit of all.
I still don’t see where you read into your examples a suggestion of full stop on development. You can still have development, as in replacing existing structures with new upgraded structures. Or vermin ridden vacant lots can have new structures built. One of the concerns is density. Filling a lot that contained one single family home with several smaller structures increases density. Hence increases congestion. That is one example of development I think many believe to fall in the “bigger” category. Like I said, there is no call for a full stop on new development. The call I think is to be careful what we approve down the road so we can protect a way of life we all have become accustomed too. As an island resident I think you might agree with that. Finally, I think we both have common ground in the fact we don’t want unbridled growth on the island. Seems like a good starting point to me.
I don’t consider replacement “new development”. This commentary strongly suggests that any effort to construct something that adds a structure is not acceptable–that is a sad state of affairs.
I’m for BETTER not BIGGER