Challenge SB 686: Unfunded State Mandate

This new state law is a developer’s dream come true. It gives developers a right to build permit while preempting all of our local policies and laws. All rural communities bordering urban areas are at risk with this law. SB 686 facilitates endless urban sprawl and shifts development costs to taxpayers by increasing demands on roads, emergency services, water, and other public infrastructure. Orange County voters were clear when nearly 75% of voters approved the rural boundary. We are asking you to defend our vote and the county constitution.

Dear Mayor Demings and Orange County Board of County Commissioners,

I am asking you to challenge SB 686 in court. The law facilitates incurred taxpayer expenses to support continued urban sprawl. Developers must be held accountable to pay their full impact fees and cost of development. We already know that taxpayers are subsidizing the long term cost of sprawling growth.

SB 686 opens the door to development that put additional demands on roads, emergency services, infrastructure, water and other public resources, while taxpayers are left with the bill. The law also restricts how local governments can regulate qualifying agricultural enclaves.

We are done pretending reckless growth pays for itself. Use the Orange County Urban3 fiscal analysis to examine the full cost to taxpayers for agricultural enclaves in rural service areas and the rural boundary. SB 686 creates an unconstitutional unfunded mandate, we expect Orange County to challenge it in court, not simply accept it. Article VII, Section 18 of the Florida Constitution provides specific protections for local governments against certain state-imposed fiscal mandates.

Growth must pay for itself. Taxpayers should not subsidize development. Please deny the agricultural enclave application on September 29 and stand up for Orange County taxpayers as more applications come in.

Thank you for your time and service,

Email your thoughts directly to: The Orange County Board of County Commissioners telling them to challenge SB 686 and unfunded state mandates in Orange County:

• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
• [email protected]

TELL THE BCC: VOTE NO ON LPN/SUSTANEE (AGAIN) 

Orange County said NO to Lake Pickett North/Sustanee before. Tallahassee law makers changed the rules.

Now LPN/Sustanee is back, using a new state agricultural-enclave law to push dense development into land we overwhelmingly voted to protect. Developers don’t get to preempt our votes! 

This isn’t infill. It’s reckless sprawl. And a state law benefiting developers should not become an excuse for local leaders to abandon their responsibility to residents.

The BCC has a choice: stand with the people or pave the way for more sprawl.

Sign this petition. Tell the BCC to VOTE NO on LPN/Sustanee.

Dear Mayor and County Commissioners,

Please vote NO when the Lake Pickett North/Sustanee agricultural enclave application comes before this board.

Orange County BCC rejected this sprawling development at least 6 times before. The community has been engaged for decades protecting this rural community. Now, Tallahassee changed the law, giving LPN/Sustanee developers a path to bring it back. But changing the law does not change the land. This is NOT infill. It is sprawl located in the rural service area, in the rural boundary, bordering the Seminole rural boundary, surrounded by conservation land, rural residential zonings, wetlands, and wildlife habitat.

The people also deserve to know how an industrial enterprise on the LPN/Sustanee SW border can help justify enclave status when it is an illegal borrow pit associated with groundwater contamination and environmental violations. It is under a state environmental cease-and-desist, and a judge denied a stay. They were also cited by FPL for storing yard waste piles under power lines. An unlawful land use should not justify more development.

Voters mandated both the Rural Boundary and Fiscal Sustainability Analysis. Honor both. Be proactive and know the true cost that will be deflected to taxpayers from this development. Staff can use the previous LPN applications; the development plan has remained largely unchanged (1,999 units). Conduct the Urban3 analysis and determine whether this state mandate unlawfully shifts development costs from developers onto Orange County taxpayers.

The impact of agricultural enclave development extends far beyond LPN/Sustanee. What happens here could set a precedent across Florida, creating a domino effect from county to county across the state, putting other rural lands at risk of intensive development.

Tallahassee changed the rules. It did not erase the responsibility Orange County has to its residents. Protect your voters. Protect the Rural Boundary. Protect taxpayers. Vote NO on LPN/Sustanee.

Thank you for your time and service,