Pine Island Plan problems
To the editor:
In a recent issue of the Eagle, Phil Buchanan wrote: “The Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act became effective on May 11, 1995, is not retroactive, and thus does not apply to the 810/910 rules enacted in 1988.”
“Not retroactive” means that no claim can be made because of any law or ordinance passed before the Bert Harris Act became effective. So, there could have been no claims against the OLD Pine Island Plan written by the Boyds and passed by the Lee Commission prior to 1990. Buchanan then seems to claim that the “810/910 rule,” being part of the 1988 Pine Island Plan, still prohibits Bert Harris claims. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. The Pine Island Plan rewritten in the late 1990s and passed in 2006 or whenever it was, is a NEW ordinance, and, though it included the “810/910 rule” language as written pre-Bert Harris, does open the doors to Bert Harris claims. In other words, the old Pine Island Plan, if simply left alone, would have been Bert Harris proof.
When the county came to the GPICA in the late 1990s with the suggestion that the Pine Island Plan be rewritten, I believe that the county staff knew full well what the implications of such a move would be. Any good attorney should have known that. Unfortunately, instead of doing some legal research with a good land use attorney, Buchanan and others bought into the argument that writing a new ordinance would LESSEN the chance of suits when it actually opened the door to them.
The county SHOULD have been told, on the record, that rewriting the ordinance would open up the possibility of Bert Harris claims. Perhaps a method could have been set up to allow exceptions or exemptions to the old Pine Island Plan on a case by case basis, but what actually happened has proven to be a disaster. Let’s face it, the county staff has NEVER believed in restricting development on Pine Island. The fact that they kept secret the fact that the traffic counts had blown through the 810/910 limits while they continued to allow new developments to be approved demonstrates that quite clearly. Development department staff, like all other government departments, has a built in self interest to grow, generate more work in order to require more staff, higher salaries, more management positions, etc. It’s what government does.
Once the 1988 Pine Island Plan was replaced, the future of Pine Island was inevitable. It will get ever more congested, ever more unlike what it was in 1988 when the Boyds performed the great service that they did. It should never have been changed, but it’s too late now.
What can be done at this point? Given the fact that it is an island with one way off of it, the county could enact extremely stringent building codes on Pine Island requiring cat 5 proof buildings at elevations high enough to allow their residents to ride out anything nature has to throw at the island. Not only would that not add to the time required to evacuate, but it would slow growth just from the standpoint of the added expense required to build. Strict building codes, like the Miami Dade codes implemented after Hurricane Andrew, have withstood any court challenges and likely could not be used in a Bert Harris claim.
I wish the people of Pine Island well. The next year or two will indicate what the future of that once wonderful place will be. Good luck to you.
Dave Lukasek
Ft. Denaud