Walton County Commissioners to Consider County-Wide Height Limits, May 26 2009

[Smiling JOe]

Back to height limits...

 

[Bob Wells]

And you don't agree that whether a public official was doing their job or not important? I don't care what the party affiliation is, was or will be, I want to know if someone is slacking off on my tax dollar.

Sorry, meant to say couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Beach Runner]

Back to height limits...

As one BCC member said, the area south of 30A is a special, beautiful place that should be protected against tall, dense developments that would obscure the view of the water from those who cannot afford to own or rent there. Even though there is a fifty-foot limit, that does not mean that a fifty-foot development south of 30A should be approved, especially if it does not meet the criteria in my post #24. Enough members of the BCC (actually I think that vote was unanimous) agreed that they voted no on the development that we were opposing.

 

[Andy A]

Sorry, meant to say couldn't agree with you more.

Thank you. Duly noted. After reading it again after my response, I thought you had probably made a typo.

 

[wrobert]

That which is scarce generally has higher value -- Econ 101.

I could not agree more. But then that would mean that all of those use to be rich developers missed that class?

What does not make sense on its face is that they continue to want to build high rises if it appears they could make more money building low rises.

 

[wrobert]

dense developments that would obscure the view of the water from those who cannot afford to own or rent there.

Would you tell me which commissioner believes in this socialist agenda so I can make sure I no longer fund their political aspirations? Feel free to PM me.


And if the commissioner is so much for fairness is seeing the Gulf, why do they support me owning land in order to take my dog on the beach, or to drive on the beach. In other words they support fairness, a little bit, but not total fairness. Heck it appears they can not even make themselves a good wealth redistribution democrat.

 

[North Lake]

I could not agree more. But then that would mean that all of those use to be rich developers missed that class?

What does not make sense on its face is that they continue to want to build high rises if it appears they could make more money building low rises.

No, those who are still rich developers made it to class all right...but they were in the right place at the right time and able to cash in on the boom.

The ones wanting to put up high rises or get increased density now where there is no market for them are just trying to recoup their losses from the property they bought at inflated prices at the wrong time...or didn't develop while there was a viable market for it. They were either absent from class or tardy when the salient point was introduced. Can't blame them for trying, but the rules have been in place for a long time.

In the long run, we'll suffer as a community if we overdevelop IMHO. We -- that is south Walton, have something that will endure in the market as a unique place if we can keep it from becoming run of the mill, cookie cutter high rises that our neighbors to the east and west enjoy. Height and density limits are a legitimate and effective way to achieve that, and have been very successful in south Walton. People who are contemplating buying know the rules in advance and plan their development accordingly.

This brings us back to the meat of this thread ... the rest of the county. Height limits have worked well in south Walton. Putting them in place for the rest of the county now, while the market is slow, will ensure that Walton County retains its uniqueness in this area. I'm not anti-growth -- quite the opposite -- but let's do quality instead of quantity. If you have something rare and special, the buyers will be there, and will pay a premium for it.

 

[TooFarTampa]

I could not agree more. But then that would mean that all of those use to be rich developers missed that class?

What does not make sense on its face is that they continue to want to build high rises if it appears they could make more money building low rises.

No, that's not what people are saying at all.

A developer wants to maximize density so he/she can sell more units for whatever plot of land is being developed. The easiest and most efficient way to do this typically is to increase height. The more units in the plan, the more stories you can stack on top of each other, the more money the developer makes.

For the buyers or end users of the property, scarcity=higher property values. Restrictions like height limits help with scarcity, thus helping the buyer retain property value after the developer is long gone.

Such restrictions are meant to protect a community as a whole. I can't imagine why anyone would think a developer should have a "right" to build whatever he or she wishes on a parcel, without regard to its impact on a community. This is what zoning and planning are for. Some places are better at it than others. :roll:

 

[Rita]

...................... Such restrictions are meant to protect a community as a whole. I can't imagine why anyone would think a developer should have a "right" to build whatever he or she wishes on a parcel, without regard to its impact on a community. This is what zoning and planning are for. Some places are better at it than others. :roll:

.
Most definitely!
Population increases have an affect on any areas where they occur, changing the landscape, esthetics, traffic, watersheds, water quality, ecology of the area and so on. Regulations, zoning, codes, etc. play an important role in softening the impact of growth. It would be very short-sighted for a community to not work toward long-range planning.

.

 

[Kurt]

A new low for Walton height law | government, law, buildings - Opinion - Northwest Florida Daily News

Opinion

The good folks here in conservative Northwest Florida talk a lot about wanting smaller, less intrusive, less meddlesome government. But guess what? A fair share of them don't really mean it.


What else are we to make of residents' apparent eagerness to let government exercise veto power over what their neighbors, law-abiding citizens all of them, do with their property?


Walton County officials recently held a series of community workshops at which residents suggested ways to guide growth over the next 20 years. The result, according to a story we published Monday, was "about 500 requests for amendments to the development code."


FIVE HUNDRED requests for amendments?!


Among them were the usual calls for government to crack down on building heights. So Walton officials now are considering an ordinance that would slap a 50-foot height limit on residential buildings throughout the county.


The proposed law, of course, is all about certain people's ideas of aesthetics. Nothing more is involved here. A few people inside and outside of government don't think tall buildings are attractive, and they think government should bully private property owners into planning shorter buildings, so they're pushing a law that will give government exactly that kind of power.


Smaller government? Forget it.


Less intrusive government? No way.


And they can't fall back on the excuse that a height limit has something to do with public safety. Not when there are exceptions in the ordinance for church steeples, cell phone towers and agricultural structures, all of which can be taller.


No, this is about fattening the law books, adding layers of bureaucracy and inevitably slowing the pace of economic recovery ... all for the sole purpose of putting a government stamp on private development.


Surely, SOME people on the Emerald Coast long for a more modest government. Don't they?