Florida legislators want to pave every rural spot left in the state
I've spent some time this month cruising through Florida's remaining rural oases, places where there's still some green space amid all the asphalt. I've seen citrus groves and stands of timber, canopy roads and cattle pastures.
When the madding crowd is driving you, well, mad, such places are a balm to the soul. And the folks I've talked to who live there would prefer them to stay that way.
Yet if some development-mad Florida legislators have their way, these will all go on the endangered list.
During our version of March Madness, the annual legislative session, there are two virulently anti-rural bills up for consideration, Senate Bill 1118 and House Bill 1209.
The formal name of the bills is 'Land Use and Development Regulations.' I think a more accurate one would be 'Get Those Dang Farmers Out of Here So We Can Cram in More Cookie Cutter Houses!'
These two bills would yank local control of development away from cities and counties across the state. The goal: Open up hundreds of thousands of agricultural acres to developers, with no chance for a review from those local governments and no way for the neighbors to object.
The two bills are also about as anti-voter as Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro. They would overturn the decisions of an overwhelming majority in Orange and Seminole counties to impose a rural boundary on the development in their counties. The Orange County boundary was just upheld by an appeals court, by the way.
'This is urban sprawl at its worst,' Lee Constantine, a former state legislator who's now a Seminole County commissioner, told me. 'You will not see a more egregious, one-sided bill.'
Constantine is far from the only person who calls these bills awful. The president of the smart-growth group 1000 Friends of Florida, Paul Owens, wrote in an Orlando Sentinel op-ed that the bills 'read like a developer's Christmas list' because they'd 'wipe out limits against development on huge swaths of high-priority natural and agricultural land across Florida, doing irreversible damage to our environment, quality of life and economy.'
I haven't seen so many environmental groups clamoring to defeat something since last year when Gov. Ron DeSantis tried to build golf courses in the state parks. When the Senate version came up in a committee this week, several senators said they were feeling the heat from all the people objecting. One joked that her phone was blowing up and her email was smoking.
Yet when the meeting concluded, the committee approved the most hated bill of the session on a 5-3 party-line vote. One Republican senator explained that he was supporting it because he trusted the sponsor to fix whatever's wrong with the bill.
Constantine scoffed at that. 'There is no fixing this nonsense,' he told me.
Ironically, this is the year Senate President Ben Albritton says he wants to lead a 'rural renaissance.' These bills seem to be aiming for something different — a rural version of the Dark Ages.
That's no surprise. The past six or seven years have been tough ones for Florida's rural residents, and not just because of all the hurricane damage. Big-money developers, aided by politicians from the governor on down, have painted a target on every green spot that's left, from the Panhandle to the Keys.
Rural residents had to fight back when the governor and Legislature approved that trio of awful toll roads known as M-CORES. They've had to fight again when the one survivor of the M-CORES repeal, the Northern Turnpike Extension, took aim at the rural areas again.
The people trying to wipe out the farms and ranches never seem to think about how important they are to the economy. There are 44,000 commercial farms in the state, and Florida agricultural products in 2022 rang up $8.88 billion in sales.
Those open spaces provide benefits for the environment, too, such as allowing for recharge of the underground aquifer and habitat for important species such as panthers. Plus, of course, we humans need the food they produce — the corn, the beef, the milk, the strawberries, the melons, the tomatoes, and the oranges, to name but a few.
Speaking as someone who often starts his day with some Florida OJ, I have to tell you that nothing produced by urban sprawl tastes nearly as good. Doesn't contain as much Vitamin C, either.
That's why smart cities and counties have set up boundaries to protect these remaining rural spots from being wiped out by the fast-buck artists.
Developers hate such boundaries. They'd like to play Ronald Reagan in Berlin and demand someone tear down those walls. But we need those walls.
'All of the South Florida counties have established an urban-rural boundary,' said Cragin Mosteller of the Florida Association of Counties, noting that the rural part usually includes the Everglades.
When I asked for the worst parts of the bills, David Cruz of the Florida League of Cities pointed out the provision whereby a 7,000-acre 'agricultural enclave' can bypass all local zoning rules to be approved for development with a decision by an administrator — no public hearings or elected official votes needed.
That leaves neighbors with no say in what happens next door to their property, he pointed out. Why don't their property rights count the same as everyone else's?
These considerations are not hypothetical. Mosteller told me about the town of West Park, in Broward County. Some years ago, the town obtained an exemption from Broward's rural boundary. Suddenly, the door was open to building all over.
'Now it's one of the fastest-growing cities in the state,' she said. 'If this bill passes, that's what would happen in all the other rural boundaries, and the public would have no opportunity to have any input.'
But shutting up the public is just what the bill sponsor wants.
SB 1118 is sponsored by Sen. Stan McClain, who also happens to be — SURPRISE! — a homebuilder in Marion County. A 2004 story in the Ocala Star Banner reported that he builds 15 houses a year.
McClain has 11 children and 18 grandchildren, which I think means he could stay busy just building homes for his own family. If his name rings a bell, it may be because a couple of years ago he sponsored a bill to stop anyone from talking about girls' menstrual cycles in elementary schools, even if the girls need to hear about it. Yes, the 'Don't Say Period' bill passed.
But what McClain is really committed to is the homebuilding business. In fact, the Florida Home Builders Association website lists him as executive officer of the Marion County Building Industry Association.
In all the stories on his much-hated anti-rural bill, McClain has dodged reporters seeking a comment. WKMG-TV, for instance, reported that it had 'reached out to McClain several times to speak to him about the bill, and he has not responded to our requests.'
I was curious to hear his reason for sponsoring this bill, especially since his campaign website says he believes government should 'not pick winners and losers with heavy-handed policies that favor one industry over another.'
Yet here he is sponsoring a bill that would clearly favor his own industry over an agriculture industry that's so important to Marion County that they have a Farmland Preservation Area, created in 2005. That's why even his fellow Marion County Republicans oppose his bill.
So, I tuned in this week to see what he'd say in the Senate Community Affairs Committee. Just out of curiosity, I first looked up who the chairman of that committee was and discovered it to be a fellow named — SURPRISE! — Stan McClain.
Here's a funny thing about being chairman. While McClain was required to yield the chair while he talked about his bill, he could delay consideration to the last of the committee's agenda, after all the other bills had been discussed at length.
That meant the committee didn't get to McClain's bill until near the meeting's scheduled end. As a result, any opponents who wanted to talk about what was wrong with it had only 30 seconds each instead of the usual, which is several minutes.
As sponsor, though, McClain got much more time to lay out the reasoning behind his bill.
'The challenge of growth management is that people haven't stopped moving to Florida and it doesn't appear they're going to stop anytime soon,' he told his fellow committee members. 'How do we supply enough homes for people moving in?'
Then he started rambling about 'inconsistent' regulations that 'merit discussion,' and insisted that this bill was all about 'trying to find a happy medium between growing and not.'
Somehow McClain never got around to explaining why he thinks it's okay for the state to run roughshod over what a lot of local voters wanted. Nor did he explain why the Legislature should get more say in local planning decisions than the local elected officials.
As one of the Democratic committee members, Sen. Jason Pizzo, told him, 'There's a lot of ickiness here.'
One other thing Pizzo said really caught my attention.
'How are we not supposed to think this is not for one specific developer in Central Florida to expand into environmentally sensitive land?' he said. But he named no names.
The Orlando Sentinel spelled out who he meant.
'The proposed state legislation is a priority for the Florida Home Builders Association as well as Deseret Ranches, the real estate arm of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints, which has lobbyists working on the bill,' the paper reported. 'Deseret Ranches owns hundreds of thousands of acres of ranch and swamp land spanning the eastern edge of Orange County, dipping into Osceola and Brevard.'
Deseret is one of the largest calf-cow operations in the nation, but the company doesn't want it to stay a ranch. They've got development plans the likes of which Florida hasn't seen since 20 years ago, when the St. Joe Co. started converting its millions of acres of Panhandle pine plantations into vacation homes.
'Long-term blueprints outline development across an area spanning nearly 250 square miles,' Florida Trend reports. 'Those plans envision 220,000 homes, 100 million square feet of commercial and institutional space and close to 25,000 hotel rooms — almost as many as Walt Disney World has.'
To aid its plans, Deseret tried to get Orlando to annex more than 50,000 acres of its land before Orange County voters could decide the fate of its rural boundary in a referendum, investigative reporter Jason Garcia noted in his 'Seeking Rents' substack. 'City leaders ultimately abandoned the annexation attempt, in part due to backlash from locals.'
I put in a call to Deseret's influential Tallahassee lobbyist, Gary Hunter, to ask why his clients want to wreck the entire state just to get their revenge on the people of Orange County. For some reason he didn't get back to me. Perhaps he was busy herding legislators the way Deseret's cowboys herd cattle.
In recent years, Florida's cities and counties have turned into the Legislature's favorite whipping boys, usually to benefit some major campaign contributor.
In 2019, for instance, they blocked local government from passing tree protection ordinances. In 2021, when Key West's voters passed a referendum limiting cruise ships because of their pollution, the Legislature stepped in and blocked the referendum. In 2023, they passed a bill that prohibits local government voter referendums or ballot initiatives on land development regulation.
Because of top-down dictates from the sneaky Legislature, local governments can't ditch fossil fuels to pick a less polluting form of energy, ban single-use plastic bags, forbid the sale of sunscreens that damage coral reefs, or promote the 'rights of nature' movement.
But this bill that McClain is pushing — and that his fellow Republicans have been helping him push, despite such strong public opposition — is far worse than anything they've done before. It's absolute madness and deserves to be tossed out with the trash.
But I bet if they do pass it, these flaming hypocrites will then go out on the speech-making circuit and claim they're 'small-government conservatives.' They'll say it with a straight face, too!
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Hogsett to introduce budget proposal without tax increases
The City of Indianapolis' budget will grow next year — just not as much as leaders expected before the legislative session. The big picture: Mayor Joe Hogsett will introduce his budget proposal to the City-County Council tonight, and it's expected to include small cuts for most departments, outside of public safety. Catch up quick: Lawmakers passed a property tax overhaul earlier this year that dramatically cut how much cities bring in from that major source of revenue for Indy. The city could raise local income taxes to make up the gap, but Hogsett has said from the outset that he's "not interested" in raising taxes. What they're saying: Dan Parker, Hogsett's chief of staff, told Axios the mayor will introduce a balanced budget with no tax increases. The budget will grow, Parker said, but departments were asked to look for savings so the city could meet the obligations of labor agreements made last year — before the property tax changes. The city will also start "laying the foundation" to capture the $50 million in road funding that lawmakers paved the way for in 2027, so long as the city can match it, Parker said. The other side: Minority Leader Michael-Paul Hart said he'll advocate to protect the council budget from any cuts. The council budget is $3.5 million — a drop in the bucket of the city's $1.5 billion annual budget. In his blog, Hart said that while the city "still faces serious decisions about how to balance its books," the council is committed to passing a balanced budget. Reality check: Despite opposition from the Republican caucus and three Democrats last year, Hogsett passed the budget he wanted — with new investments in pedestrian safety and raises for city employees. Yes, but: Tension between Hogsett and the council has only grown since then as the investigation into his handling of sexual harassment allegations against his former deputy, Thomas Cook, uncovered text messages between Hogsett and several young women that some councilors have called inappropriate. Hogsett told Axios he developed a "casual, conversational" style of communicating with those he worked closely with but did not mean to make anyone uncomfortable. At least four councilors have called for Hogsett's resignation — something he's firmly resisted — which could complicate budget negotiations.


The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
High costs after tariffs pose threat to Trump and GOP
The cost of living in America is projected to rise because of President Trump's latest round of tariffs and that's a political problem for the president and Republican lawmakers in Washington, who campaigned in 2024 on bringing down the cost of groceries and other staples, a message that resonated with strongly with voters. More than six months into Trump's second term, however, the costs of groceries, and other essential goods, such as cars, have continued to rise, corresponding with a drop in Trump's job approval rating and a souring public view of Trump's handling of the economy. The cost of even 'cheap' eats is become fodder for debate on social media, as people grumble about everything from the price of McDonald's hash browns to Coca-Cola. The price of eggs has come down in recent months, but a dozen are still, on average, 64 cents more expensive than a year ago, while the price of chicken, ground beef and orange juice were more expensive last month compared to a year ago. While inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index has stabilized at 2.7 percent, policymakers fear the prices of goods and services could spike up again, which is a big reason the Federal Reserve is hesitant to cut interest rates, a major point of tension between Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Trump. Trump's tariffs are expected to put upward pressure on costs. Experts project that higher fees on goods from Canada, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and other major trading partners could cost the average family of four an additional $2,400 or more in annual expenses. A Republican strategist who requested anonymity said Republicans need to be careful that inflation and costs don't become an anchor on their candidates in next year's election. 'That's why Trump's beating that Fed rate cut like a dead horse,' the strategist quipped, referring to the immense pressure the president has put on the Fed to cut rates. The strategist explained that while spurring the economy by making money cheaper to borrow might increase inflation over the long term, it will give voters a sense that the economy and their income-earning ability is on the rise. Vin Weber, a Republican strategist and former member of the House GOP leadership, said while some voters might hope to see prices come down, he warned that is extremely difficult for any president to accomplish. 'I think that we've made a mistake as Republicans a little bit, in talking about bringing down costs. Bringing an end to inflation but actually reducing prices is a lot more difficult,' he said. 'We can do that with some things, like certain commodities like gasoline. But broadly speaking, to say we're going to bring down prices, it's very, very difficult and not necessarily desirable. In traditional economic terms, prices coming down is deflation and is usually identified with a recession,' he said. Republican strategists say the 'jury is still out' on what the economy will look like a year from now when the battle for control of Congress heats up, but they warn that Republicans' political fortunes will ride on how voters view their own ability to keep up in a world that gets more expensive every month. 'The two most important reasons why Donald Trump won the presidency in 2024 were to bring down inflation and juice the economy. The progress on those two efforts will go a long way toward determining the president's job approval and the fortunes of Republicans going forward,' said Whit Ayres, a leading Republican pollster. 'There's been a tremendous amount of attention paid to the [Jeffrey] Epstein case, but progress on inflation and economic growth will be far more important than the Epstein case to the vast majority of Americans,' he added. Ayres said that polls show voters increasingly view the economy as Trump's economy, a perception that took hold after Trump announced sweeping reciprocal tariffs on most countries on April 2, 'Liberation Day.' 'Polls show increasingly that the status of the economy is due to policies adopted during the Trump administration rather than those adopted in the Biden administration. That has been the case ever since Liberation Day on April 2 with the tariff announcement,' he said. A Gallup poll of 1,002 adults nationwide last month found that Trump's job approval rating has dipped to 37 percent and that his approval rating on the economy has dropped from 41 percent in March to 37 percent last month. A University of Massachusetts Amherst poll of 1,000 respondents conducted from July 25-30 also found Trump with a 38 percent job approval rating and a 58 percent disapproval rating. Respondents in that poll gave Trump a 37 percent approval rating on 'jobs' and a 31 percent approval rating on 'tariffs.' That has Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill feeling nervous about the latest round of tariffs Trump imposed on foreign trading partners last week. A new analysis by the Yale Budget Lab projects Trump's tariffs could increase prices by 1.8 percent in the short term and cost the average American household $2,400 a year. The nonpartisan research group calculates that consumers face an average effective tariff rate of 18.6 percent, the highest since 1933. This has some Republicans in Congress worried about a political backlash. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) late last month unveiled a proposal to send a $600 rebate check to every American — man, woman and child — to help offset higher costs from tariffs. His bill would allow for higher rebates if tariff revenues exceed projections. A family of four would receive $2,400 in economic assistance under his plan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) warned colleagues in April that the enactment of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley act, which raised tariffs substantially, led to the defeat of the Republican authors of the legislation in the 1932 election, and lost Republicans control of Congress for decades. 'The economics of tariffs are bad, the politics, if anything, are worse,' he warned at the time. Congressional Democrats, who are struggling with their own dismal job approval ratings, see the high costs of daily living as an issue that can help them win back control of the Senate and House. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) traveled across upstate New York on Tuesday to highlight how the administration is raising costs and hurting the economy. Appearing at an event in Niagara Falls, he called Trump's 35 percent tariff rate on Canada 'destructive' and tariffs more generally as 'a dagger aimed at the heart of Upstate New York.' Democrats are hoping to flip several Republican-held seats in New York, and state lawmakers are discussing legislation to allow New York to redraw its congressional lines mid-decade. A group of Democratic senators from New England sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Thursday slamming him over rising energy prices after Trump signed into law the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, which drastically cut tax incentives for renewable energy. 'While energy demand surges, your policies are strangling America's cheapest and quickest-to-deploy sources of energy — solar and wind — by hiking costs, creating insurmountable permitting hurdles and injecting uncertainty into the market,' they wrote. The signatories included Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Angus King (Maine), an independent who caucuses with Democrats. Ron Bonjean, a GOP strategist and former Senate and House leadership aide, said 'voters vote with their wallets and that's why they voted Trump in.' But he questioned whether Democrats will have credibility on the issue of the economy and inflation after voters came away from Biden's four years in office with a strongly negative view of his handling of those issues. 'The Democrats are having a really difficult time seizing on a number of opportunities because they lack the organization and the message,' he said. 'They just seem so disorganized. 'We're 15 months out' from the election and 'while historically the Republicans would likely lose the House, it doesn't feel that way. It feels it could go in any direction,' he added. 'We'll see what the economy is looking like a few months before the election,' Bonjean said.


Chicago Tribune
27 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Karl Lockhart: Instead of squabbling over a new chair, merge the CFTC with the SEC
Today, trading stocks and options, wagering on an MLB game and buying cryptocurrency are just a swipe away — sometimes in the same app. The merging of these markets makes a strong case to merge the two federal agencies charged with regulating them, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And now is the time to do it. The Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees the CFTC, has been squabbling over President Donald Trump's nominated chair, Brian Quintenz. The remaining CFTC commissioners have indicated they plan to leave by the end of the year. Meanwhile, the SEC will likely have a Republican vacancy in the near future when Commissioner Hester Peirce's term ends. This setup creates a perfect scenario for Congress to pass legislation to merge these two agencies, something that has been called for — on a bipartisan basis — and considered for over 30 years. Quintenz could become the SEC's third Republican commissioner when Peirce departs, applying his past experience as a CFTC commissioner to smooth the transition. Beyond the convenience of timing, why merge the SEC and the CFTC? First, the line between the two regulators' jurisdictions has always been blurry. An early debate centered on futures related to securities, and current confusion and jurisdictional squabbling have come up over the regulation of non-stablecoin crypto products. While the GENIUS Act's passage has brought clarity to stablecoins, a merged SEC-CFTC would immediately remove uncertainty over which agency should oversee other crypto innovations. More importantly, markets have changed. The CFTC began as an agency to regulate futures on agricultural products, but the vast majority of futures and derivatives today are linked to financial products and instruments. Agricultural futures make up only a small sliver of the market. What's more, the growth in event contracts — options that pay out based on whether a given event does or does not take place — and CFTC's approval of event contracts related to sports have effectively legalized sports gambling across the United States, folding that market into the CFTC's regulatory reach. In short, all markets for financial products — equities, debt, options, commodity and currency futures, crypto and, now, sports wagers — are merging. Furthermore, the same players are participating in and employing the same tactics across all markets. Institutional investors such as hedge funds are applying big data, algorithms and artificial intelligence not only to stocks and bonds, but also to event contracts and sports betting markets. And, as mentioned above, retail investors — nonprofessional market participants trading for their personal accounts — can open the same app on their phones to trade stocks, options, crypto and sports-related event contracts anytime, anywhere. A merged SEC-CFTC would cut down on compliance costs for firms that currently must abide by two sets of regulations. And it would allow for better-coordinated enforcement activities against bad actors who scam retail investors across multiple markets. Both agencies also have a similar structure — five commissioners, with at most a bare majority from the president's party to preserve independence — a crucial factor in our partisan era. To be sure, as with any merger, some operational difficulties would be present as cultures and practices become aligned. But the SEC and the CFTC have fundamentally similar missions and roles. They just regulated what were different markets. Now, to best protect investors, facilitate capital formation and maintain a fair, orderly and efficient (now-unified) market, the SEC and CFTC should join forces. Markets have merged. So should our regulators.