Art Bennett's Letter

We would like to thank Art Bennett for blowing the smoke away to show what Coconut Creek city hall plans for the future of their most vulnerable citizens. And for his apparent admission the city violated Florida Statute S 163.3177(6)(f)(d) with casual disregard for the law.

-------------------- Addressing growth in Coconut Creek --------------------

Art Bennett
coconut creek

December 15, 2004
A Dec. 4 article contained remarks by a Coconut Creek resident expressing displeasure over the fact that the city government was considering a "Main Street" town center. Her main concerns were that such a progressive adventure would remove a mobile home park that desperately needs some fixing up, a horse farm and possibly farm land.

I have lived in Coconut Creek for over 40 years and was one of the contributing founders of the city. Being here when it all started, I have held many positions and offices, one of them planning and zoning commissioner.

Way back when we were just starting out, we were required to submit a master plan to cover growth and future use of the land. Even though most of the land was owned by farmers, corporations and developers and had not all been annexed into the city, we made plans for what it would be when all the land was within the city boundaries.

Our plan included all of the elements required by federal, state and local rules and regulations: housing, educational institutions, parks, roads, churches, streets and facilities. Our submission did not include mobile home parks, impoverished areas or businesses and settlements that might become objectionable to community standards.

Recent legislation requires that all unincorporated areas in the county be incorporated into some city. Some cities are greatly concerned over the cost to the city to bring these areas up to present-day code. It might cost the cities money they do not have and they may have to resort to some form of tax. This is not the case in Coconut Creek. These areas are all within the city limits and the city government has control over their development and can make certain that developers do not burden the city with any expenses. Redevelopment of these areas will actually add to the city tax base and maintain the city's high standards.

The horse farm will always be a problem. No matter if the city allows it to stay or moves it to another area, it will always have to fight the not in my back yard people.

The farmers have every right to sell their land to developers. Remember this was all farm land in the beginning.

Copyright (c) 2004, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Visit Sun-Sentinel.com

RE: Comprehensive Plan.

Comprehensive (land use) plans were mandated in Florida by the 1985 Growth Management Act. This plan was supposed to protect the health, safety and quality of life of all Floridians and affordable housing. The truth is that many local politicians are biased against manufactured housing. They will vote to change a land use (comprehensive) plan to get rid of manufactured housing. They say this is for improvement through redevelopment. Many of the land use plans do not designate manufactured housing as "affordable housing" that would provide some protection.

If the park owner wants the land use plan changed to allow construction of an apartment complex, condominiums, shopping center, or expensive sitebuilt homes, the law presumes that the change should not be granted unless it benefits the public. The law is clear that nobody is legally entitled to a comprehensive plan change.

The politicians and bureaucrats usually look at what they perceive to be a large increase in taxable revenue. They give little or no thought to displacing the residents of a manufactured home community. They rarely consider that the resident being displaced won't be able to move his home. Selling it is out of the question. Since they are on fixed incomes they can rarely afford to stay in that area. Not only do they lose their home, they lose the lifestyle they sought in community living. While the new development results in direct increased revenue, often everyone will pay increased taxes as the new land use plan means that new roads, sewers, water and other improvements are required that all taxpayers must pay for. All of this results from the bias the politicians and bureaucrats have against manufactured housing and consider these communities undesirable.

Let me quote from a recent article written by Lesley Blackner: "The best way to protect thousands of manufactured home communities in Florida is to ensure that they are properly recognized in comprehensive plans as Affordable Housing and then give the power over proposed plan changes to the people who live there."

Len Bonifield