Urban Sprawl and the Local State Robert Allan Pennock

Home , NIMBY, Urban sprawl

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2004 Urban Sprawl and the Local State Robert Allan Pennock

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

URBAN SPRAWL AND THE LOCAL STATE

ROBERT ALLAN PENNOCK

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Geography in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2004

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Robert Allan Pennock defended on March 11, 2004

______Janet E. Kodras Professor Directing Dissertation

______Ivonne Audirac Outside Committee Member

______Barney Warf Committee Member

______Jonathan I. Leib Committee Member

Approved:

______Barney Warf, Chair Department of Geography

______David W. Rasmussen, Dean College of Social Sciences

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee member

This dissertation is dedicated to my loving family. Lynne, Martha, and Rachael Ultimately, my success in this endeavor was not because of all of the books, papers, classes, meetings, field trips, and seemingly endless hours of writing and rewriting. Rather, my success was due to the constant love, support and encouragement of my family. I could not have done it without you. Thank you

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have helped me in the development of this dissertation. I want to thank my supervisory committee members who provided much needed encouragement, especially Jan Kodras and Barney Warf. Additionally, I would like to thank the many people in Sarasota and Manatee counties who assisted in my research. In particular, I wish to thank Jerry Gray, Dennis Wilkison, Carol Clarke, and Mark Barnebey. Finally, I wish to thank my friend Dr. Daren Purcell for his constant support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures...... viii Abstract ...... x

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Research Questions ...... 6 Chapter Preview ...... 8

1. THEORIES OF URBAN FORM AND URBAN SPRAWL ...... 9

Causes of Sprawl ...... 13 Costs of Sprawl ...... 16 Solutions to Sprawl ...... 17

2. SOCIAL THEORY AND SPATIAL THEORY ...... 20

Structuration ...... 20 Realism and Structuration ...... 24 Space and Spatial Form ...... 30 The Social Production of Space ...... 36 The State ...... 37 Synthesis ...... 43

3. RESEARCH MODEL AND METHODOLOGY ...... 45

Epistemology and Research Method ...... 56

4. SARASOTA AND MANATEE COUNTIES ...... 63

The Settings of Interaction...... 63 Sarasota County ...... 71 Manatee County...... 124

5. EXPLANATION AND CONCLUSIONS...... 153

Growth and Urban Sprawl ...... 153 Sarasota and Manatee ...... 164 Conclusions...... 186

APPENDIX A...... 196

APPENDIX B ...... 198

APPENDIX C ...... 200

REFERENCES ...... 203

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 223

LIST OF TABLES

1. Population Comparisons ...... 66

2. Population Projections ...... 66

3. Age Comparisons...... 68

4. Selected Employment Statistics...... 69

5. Research Questions and Common Findings ...... 187

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Relationship of Research Questions ...... 7

2. Structuration Model of Human Action ...... 22

3. Structuration Over Time ...... 23

4. Structuration Duality...... 23

5. Three Axes Of Structuration...... 24

6. Structuration and Material Objects ...... 26

7. Realist Structures ...... 27

8. Structuration and Spatial Form ...... 32

9. The State ...... 38

10. Research Model ...... 47

11. Types of Structuration Objects ...... 48

12. State, Capital, and Civil Society ...... 55

13. Map of Manatee and Sarasota counties in Florida...... 64

14. Sarasota Residential Development – 1970 ...... 77

15. Sarasota Future Land Use Map – 1975...... 89

16. Sarasota Future Land Use Map – 1989...... 105

17. Sarasota Residential Development – 1997 ...... 123

18. OPUG Map ...... 128

viii

19. Manatee Planned Residential Development ...... 152

20. Florida Growth and Development Realist Structure...... 162

21. Development Model...... 163

22. A Revised Model ...... 195

ABSTRACT

Urban sprawl is a descriptive term of art commonly referring to low density, scattered development extending out from cities. Although many studies have examined the causes, costs, and solutions to sprawl, consensus on what to do about sprawl remains elusive. Much work has been framed by the assumptions of neo-classical economics or other functionalist theorizations. Little work has been done on the role of the local state in the production of urban sprawl. This dissertation synthesizes a research framework from structuration and realism theories in order to examine how two local states in Florida, Manatee and Sarasota counties, have acted to encourage and discourage urban sprawl development. Production of space theories offered by Lefebvre and Gottdiener, along with a theorization of the state offered by Jessop, are used to explore the policies and actions of these two local governments. The use of a structuration-realism framework has enabled the research to examine beyond the level of events to explore the mechanisms that generate urban sprawl. Major findings show that these two local states have taken distinctively different approaches to the issue of sprawl which have in turn affected the developing urban landscapes. Multiple competing conceptions of the forms of urban sprawl, i.e. socially defined spatial forms, have combined to recursively condition the actions of the local state as well as capital and civil society. Urban sprawl is a form of urban development that is being reproduced via unique institutionalized practices of each local state.

INTRODUCTION

Urban sprawl is controversial. It is a term of art used for the last 50 years to describe a common development pattern throughout the United States and elsewhere. It is typically defined as unplanned, inefficient, low-density, scattered development that extends out from cities (Whyte 1957; Harvey and Clark 1965; McKee and Smith 1972; Ewing 1994). While urban sprawl has a commonly understood meaning (although it is disputed by some), it is not a precise term that lends itself easily to operationalization and measurement (Audirac and Zifou 1989; Audirac et al 1990). We do not have consensus on the reasons for sprawl and there are competing paradigms for urban growth and development in general (Bourne 1996; Gottdiener 1994). Debates continue regarding the costs and benefits of sprawl (Bourne 1996; Burchell 1997; Freilich and Peshoff 1997; Holcombe 1990; Steiner 1994). Whyte (1957) described sprawl as a post World War II phenomenon associated with an expanding U.S. economy and population. He sketched out a general definition of sprawl, identified associated problems and proposed solutions. The 1960s witnessed a growing interest in the phenomenon of urban sprawl and its negative effects. Neoclassical economics provided the theoretical foundation for most of this work. Harvey and Clark (1964) defined sprawl as the gluttonous consumption of land. More specifically, it was described as unplanned, scattered and inefficient development that converted farmland to urban uses and destroyed important natural resources. The 1970s saw a continued interest in sprawl with a particular concern about its negative impacts. The frequently cited Costs of Sprawl Study argued the costly nature of sprawl patterns of development (Real Estate Research Corporation 1974). The issue continued to attract attention throughout the 1980's and 1990's as states initiated programs to limit urban sprawl. While most definitions of urban sprawl are generally compatible, if not consistent, it has been argued that "there is no single consensual definition of sprawl" (Audirac and Zifou 1989,

ii). The contested definition of urban sprawl has led to some interesting results. A definition of urban sprawl is not just an academic exercise. In order for the state to regulate urban sprawl, it must be clearly defined. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) defined urban sprawl as follows:

Urban sprawl means urban development or uses which are located in predominantly rural areas, or rural areas interspersed with generally low-intensity or low density urban uses, and which are characterized by one or more of the following conditions: (a) the premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; (b) the creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area; or (c) the creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided. Urban sprawl is typically manifested in one or more of the following land use or development patterns: Leapfrog or scattered development; ribbon or strip commercial or other development; or large expanses of predominantly low-intensity, low-density, or single sue development (Florida Administrative Code 1994, Rule Chapter 9J-5.003, 134).

In 1994, this definition was challenged as being vague and subjective by various development interests, including the largest landowner, St. Joe Development Corporation. But the courts found that the definition and other associated regulatory provisions were necessarily flexible in order to be applied to a wide range of actual conditions (Morell and Keating 1994). Since 1994, local governments and the FDCA (also known as the state land planning agency) have implemented the definition and related regulatory provision to discourage urban sprawl through the local government comprehensive planning process. One issue raised with the definition of sprawl is that it is difficult to measure. To overcome this, Ewing (1994) proposed that sprawl be measured (and thus defined) based on the degree of accessibility and lack of functional open space. He argues that "It is the impacts of development that render development patterns undesirable, not the patterns themselves" (Ewing 1994: 2). Gordon and Wong (1985) distinguish urban sprawl from polycentric urban agglomerations. In other words, a general decentralization and spreading out of an urban area as it grows is not sprawl if it consists of multiple urban centers. They state that it is not clear "at what number of centers polycentrism ceases and sprawl begins" (Gordon and Wong 1985, 662). Urban sprawl is often linked to suburban expansion. But what is suburbia? The most common definition is that it is a residential development beyond the city, providing a desirable

mix of country and city amenities. It serves as a bedroom community and as a haven away from the perceived negative attributes of city life, such as crime, congestion, and pollution. Suburban development is not a new phenomenon. Trains and streetcars in conjunction with aggressive real estate speculation and marketing facilitated suburban development in the 1880’s. Residential development occurred adjacent to these physically fixed transportation networks resulting in bands of linear development, often in spoke patterns emanating from the city centers. More extensive suburbanization occurred in the 1920’s with the increased use of automobiles (Williams 2000). The automobile opened up land to development that was distant from the fixed rail systems and facilitated a less dense pattern, scattered around city centers. Levy (2000, 23) argued that growth of personal income was a “dispersing force,” allowing people to spend more on suburban housing and suburban-urban commutes. Many have noted that the federal home mortgage guarantees, interstate highways, and tax breaks for homeowners also facilitated suburban expansion and sprawl (Nelson and Duncan 1995; Levy 2000). The image of suburbia as a residential refuge does not fit reality. Most suburbanization since the 1930’s onward included commercial and industrial uses. The term “industrial park” describes an effort to fit industrial uses into the image of suburbia. Teaford (1997) describes this as post-suburbia since it is a residential suburbia modified and intruded upon by non-residential uses. “Edge City” is the most common slang used today for new towns occurring on the perimeter of established cities, e.g. Tysons Corner outside of Washington, D.C. (Garreau 1991). Some definitions of sprawl assert that sprawl is the single use residential suburbia but not the mixed use post-suburban new town that is perceived as being an efficient land use. Fischel suggests that these edge cities "harden low-density zoning patterns” by making long-distance commutes less necessary for residents of once-remote suburbs (Fischel 1999, 170). These different ideas serve to complicate the issue further. The contested definition of urban sprawl is problematic for both academicians and urban planners. Moreover, it is not simply the reality of sprawl that is contested but the perception of that reality. Tom Pelham, former Secretary of the FDCA and a widely recognized land use planning expert, commented that he knew sprawl when he saw it. This comment is not flippant, but recognizes the difficulty of defining sprawl. “Much as Justice Potter Steward said of

pornography, most people would be hard pressed to define urban sprawl, but they know it when they see it” (Ewing 2004). The state of Florida has enacted policies to address the perceived, albeit contested, issue of sprawl. In 1983, Florida state legislators and other interested parties met to address the impacts of rapid growth and in particular, urban sprawl (Select Committee on Growth Management 1983). This meeting led to landmark growth management legislation in 1985 and 1986 in which the State of Florida directed local governments to "discourage the proliferation of sprawl" through local government comprehensive planning (Chapter 163, 1987 Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5, 1987 Florida Administrative Code). Concerns about urban sprawl continued and in 1989 Governor Martinez convened a task force on urban growth patterns in Florida which concluded that "Florida must combat urban sprawl" (Governor's Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns 1989, 1). Additional regulations requiring local governments to limit sprawl were adopted in 1994 (Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code). Local governments proceeded to develop and implement comprehensive plans that varied widely in addressing the issue of urban sprawl. The existing physical landscape of sprawl, legal vesting of previously approved but unbuilt development, and local (and global) development interests impacted the substance and effectiveness of local government efforts to discourage sprawl. Urban sprawl and the debate on what to do about it continue (Freilich 1999; Longman 1994; O’Toole 2001; Weitz 1999). Williams (2000) writes that urban sprawl is a “tragically under recognized ‘silent crisis’ in which Americans are rapidly squandering their finite land resources at rates that are simply not sustainable.” Policies to discourage urban sprawl often appear to conflict with policies to promote local economic development. The regulatory landscape as well as the pattern and process of urban development, reflects a mix of competing interests. Part of the difficulty of conceptualizing and operationalizing urban sprawl stems from deep-seated ideologies regarding the nature of urban growth. Economic determinism influences the majority of analyses of urban growth and development under the mainstream neoclassical paradigm as well as Marxian political economy. Social and political forces are not given due consideration. Neoclassical studies relying on a positivist epistemology often deal only with the superficial level of events rather than investigating the generative mechanisms of urban growth.

(Gottdiener 1994; Healey and Barrett 1990; Sayer 1979). Explanations utilizing Marxian political economy are often functionalist and the role of contingency in the production of the built environment is rarely acknowledged. This dissertation considers the insights of both mainstream neoclassical economics and Marxian political economy through a broader lens of social theory in an attempt to avoid the problems noted above. The conceptual framework is based upon structuration (Giddens 1984) and realist (Sayer 1992) theories as well as a social production of urban space model (Gottdiener 1994) and theories of the state (Jessop 1990). These theoretical frameworks provide a better way of conceptualizing the broader social process of the production of space and specifically the production of urban sprawl. Neoclassical and political economy models offer explanations regarding the mechanisms of urban sprawl. While individually flawed (Gottdiener 1994) and not particularly compatible, these models do provide important insights. Rather than a forced choice between these competing approaches, both will be kept “in play as each emphasizes different aspects of the operation of the property markets and the development industry” (Healey 1990, 108). It is argued that the dominant ideological engine or structure that molds opinions and actions is in actuality a complex and chaotic combination of these theories. This is not an endorsement of a structuralist explanation. Rather, the actions of individuals to produce such structures as well as the importance of contingency will be addressed within a structuration framework. In short, this dissertation combines and synthesizes a number of theoretical approaches to reflect the complexity of the social-spatial phenomenon of urban sprawl. Sayer (1979, 858) states "it is often fruitful to bring opposing theories into a critical engagement with the aim of choosing between them or evolving a better theory." The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate how and why the local-state discourages and encourages urban sprawl development and to assess the effectiveness of state policies at limiting urban sprawl. Specifically, research examined the specific actions, programs and policies of the local-state and the discursive reasoning for formulating and pursuing such actions. The important role of belief systems in structuring actions and spaces was examined. Belief systems include our understanding of urban growth and urban development as well as the desire for economic prosperity and non-economic/public goods such as environmental quality, good schools or stable community life. Here, the contest between use values and exchange values is

important (Logan and Molotch 1987). Linkages between the local-state and other components of the overlapping social systems, i.e., capital and civil society, were examined to a lesser degree. It is suggested that actions of the state seek to modify the nature and extent of sprawl as the state seeks its own course in mediating the forces of capital and civil society (Gottdiener 1994; Jessop 1990). The empirical research consisted of two case studies. Two local governments in Florida, Manatee and Sarasota counties, which have similar demographics, physical features and broadly similar development patterns, were examined. The research revealed distinctive differences in growth management polices and other policies resulting in differences in the manifestation of urban sprawl.

Research Questions

The question now is how do we respond to the contested nature of sprawl and the many divergent theories that attempt to explain sprawl? How can we better explain how and why urban sprawl is produced? And more specifically for the purposes of this research, how can we best investigate and understand the actions of the local state in the production of urban sprawl? Based on the literature reviewed above, I propose a broadly inclusive production of space model as the centerpiece of a research design operationalized through a structuration/realist epistemology. The research will address six questions: 1. What policies and actions of the local-state encourage urban sprawl in some ways and discourage it in others? 2. What generates, enables and constrains these policies and actions? 3. How (mechanisms/processes) do policies and actions of the state help to produce the intended and unintended consequence of urban sprawl? 4. What are the particular manifestations of urban sprawl that are facilitated by actions of the state? (e.g., land use characteristics, phases of development: active, latent, abandoned) 5. How do the spaces of urban sprawl (acknowledged and unacknowledged spatial conditions) influence the actions of the state?

6. How do different places produce different sprawl? Specifically, how do the two places in the case study produce different sprawl? It is useful to illustrate the fundamental relationship of these questions in diagrammatic form in below. Actions of the state encourage or discourage urban sprawl. But what causes these actions to occur and what are the actual mechanisms that encourage/discourage sprawl? Moreover, how do the spatial patterns of urban sprawl reflect back on the state?

2 1 4 Factors that cause Policies and the policies and actions that 3 Urban Sprawl actions of the encourage and local state discourage sprawl

Figure 1: Relationship of Research Questions

The research focus will be on actions of the local state. Necessary and contingent relationships to capital and civil society will also be investigated. In particular, the roles of the state in capital accumulation and legitimation will be examined. However, the focus of this study is not to suggest that the state is the primary agent in producing sprawl. Rather it is argued that the actions of the state serve to modify the nature and extent of sprawl as the state seeks its own course in mediating the forces of capital and civil society. The state rarely produces sprawl directly, although those instances do exist. In these instances, elements of capital and civil society typically play a significant role. A production of space model will be developed with other concepts to present the following scenario: Capital and civil society interact with the state in complex ways to produce programs and regulations that facilitate particular land use patterns. Urban sprawl is promoted because of a dominant pro-growth ideology dedicated to the idea that all development is beneficial and that urban sprawl is good for economic growth. The benefits and costs of urban sprawl are unevenly distributed so that state, capital and civil society are fractured in their

support for or opposition to urban sprawl. Land use patterns and their regulation and promotion by the state constitute spatial structures and realist-structures, respectively, which interact with capital and civil society in ways to support local capital growth as well as particular political and social systems. Capital, civil society and the state are co-evolving, mutually constituting and historically contingent. The spatial structure of urban sprawl facilitates its continued reproduction and expansion as it forms the context of future actions of state, capital and civil society. Different places should manifest differences in the regulating framework and urban sprawl patterns.

Chapter Preview

Chapter 1 examines the multiple explanations for the development of cities and urban sprawl. The mainstream theories in the United States are based on neo-classical economic assumptions. These theories are contested by a variety of critical theories, particularly those derived from Marxist political economy. Similarly, there are multiple views on the production and effects of urban sprawl. Chapter 2 describes the major tenets of structuration and realism. The two approaches are synthesized. Space, spatial form, the state, organization, and law are conceptualized within this framework. Social production of space theories which fully recognize the combined roles of the state, capital, and civil society in producing urban development are shown to be compatible with the structuration-realism framework. This provides a foundation for a new model of producing urban form with a focus on the state. Chapter 3 outlines a new research model. The underlying epistemology for research is described. Finally, the methodology for carrying out the study is presented. Chapter 4 provides the overall settings of interaction of the two counties. Location, demographics, physiography, and economics are described. Empirical data is provided for Sarasota and Manatee counties. Actions that have enabled and constrained development activity over the last 30 years are described. Land use planning policies are highlighted. Chapter 5 applies the synthesized research model and theory to the empirical data. Conclusions show that the uniqueness of each local state’s actions resulted in distinctive urban sprawl patterns of development, which in turn have recursively conditioned those actions.

CHAPTER 1

THEORIES OF URBAN FORM AND URBAN SPRAWL

Chapter 1 examines the multiple explanations for the development of cities and urban sprawl. The mainstream theories in the United States are based on neo-classical economic assumptions. These theories are contested by a variety of critical theories, particularly those derived from Marxist political economy. Similarly, there are multiple views on the production and effects of urban sprawl. Theories based on neo-classical economics have become interwoven into the fabric of our common consciousness such that they have become unquestioned, common sense. Thus, they have become part of the ideological structure that we draw upon to explain urban growth and sprawl. The neoclassical paradigm posits that urban form is created by the cumulative actions (demand) of individual households and firms. Demand for land that results in the creation of particular land uses at specific locations is determined by each location's profit making potential relative to all other locations. Individuals and firms making land use decisions based on this economic consideration create the overall land use pattern. The free market enables this activity to take place in an economically rational way. (Cadwallader 1996; Gottdiener 1994) Factors such as labor supply and availability of natural resources are important to neoclassical land use models. However, the location of a land use relative to where goods and services are exchanged has been the key variable because of the high cost of transportation. The early models identified the center of the city as the single point of market exchange, which was consistent with traditional monocentric city form.

Alonso (1960) examined firms and individual as rational actors in an economic urban land market. He described bid-rent curves and noted that location of a particular use within an urban area will be indifferent as long as it falls along the bid-rent curve. This is because the bid- rent curve represents profit maximization for firms or satisfaction maximization for residents. Once again, this is based on a rational, “economic man” model, which makes numerous assumptions regarding issues such as perfect knowledge, and discounts other non-economic variables. In recent decades, the reduction in transportation costs in proportion to other costs has resulted in changes in land use patterns. Sinclair (1967) noted how competition between urban and rural (agricultural) uses has changed, leading to the expansion of urban areas and loss of productive farmland near cities. Continuing changes in transportation and communication technology as well as other changes in the nature of the capitalist enterprise, such as globalization, affect other changes to the urban pattern. In sum, neoclassical models are demand-driven and incorporate both an economic and technological determinism (Gottdiener 1994). Advocates of the neoclassical economic paradigm argue that sprawl reflects an economically rational way of allocating land uses and that state intervention is not necessary or desirable. Most admit that there may be short term inefficiencies, externalities or other costs, but that over time, the market as a self-regulating, equilibrium seeking system will resolve these problems. Moreover, some argue that urban sprawl is good and that instead of negative effects; it results in reduced traffic congestion, less environmental impact and denser, more efficient urban form in the long run due to urban infill (Audirac and Zifou 1989; Gordon and Wong 1985; Holcombe 1990; Peiser 1989). The first criticism usually leveled at neoclassical arguments is the fallacy of a perfect market and other related assumptions. This is a particular problem for the land market. As Ewing (1994, 4) notes:

In economic theory, a perfectly functioning market requires many buyers and sellers, good information about prices and quality, and no external costs or benefits. The land market meets none of these requirements. The number of buyers and sellers of raw land is limited at any point in time. The rate of land appreciation is speculative. Suburban development is subsidized directly and through the tax code. The land market is rife with externalities. And government regulation of development introduces additional market distortions. In effect,

market imperfections define sprawl and provide the justification for public intervention to discourage sprawl.

The urban sprawl pattern itself, with its inefficiencies and costs, is an argument against the neoclassical idea of a self-regulating, efficient market. The idea that urban sprawl is a solution in the making, rather than a problem is, "untested, myopic in the variables and costs considered, selective in argument, and overzealous in terms of the recommendations proposed" (Bourne 1996, 703). The above controversies are rooted in the economic determinist basis for neoclassical economics. Neoclassical economic approaches fail to account for social and political factors that affect urban form. Logan and Molotch (1987, 1, 9) argue that

Markets are not mere meetings between producers and consumers whose relations are ordered by the impersonal “laws” of supply and demand … markets themselves are the result of cultures; markets are bound up with human interests in wealth, power, and affection. Markets work through such interests and the institutions that are derived from and sustain them. These human forces organize how markets will work, what prices will be, as well as the behavioral response to prices.

The economic determinist position treats "the conversion of economic and social processes into land use change and built form as essentially unproblematic" (Healey and Barrett 1990, 94). The role of the state is often ignored or discounted (Gottdiener 1994). “Neoclassical economic theory has generally neglected the possession and use of power” (Peterson 1991, 29). In response, some mainstream theorists who utilize neo-classical economics have incorporated the state to varying degrees. These political-economy theorists attempt to address the interaction between the state and the market. In general, these theorists assert that,

The State is necessarily involved in any type of market economy. Because a market is based primarily on private property and voluntary exchange for private gain, at a minimum the State must protect these arrangements if the market is to continue to function (Petterson 1991, 15).

Finally, in large measure, studies that rely on neoclassical economic assumptions typically investigate the outward appearances or events of urban sprawl without going deeper to explore the actual objects and mechanisms that produce urban sprawl (Sayer 1979). There is little effort to examine "structure, agency and their relations directly, these being absorbed as assumptions into the theoretical parameters of the approach" (Healey and Barrett 1990: 92).

The Marxian paradigm is composed of a variety of approaches. Class conflict theorists argue that the relations of production between capital and labor determine urban form. One variant is a social control theory whereby capital locates sites of production (factories) in order to control labor (Gottdiener 1985). Alternatively, the labor theory of location is based on capital shifting the location of production in order to better address labor issues of supply, e.g., quantity, quality, wages, other costs, and demand, which are a function of available technology (Storper and Walker 1989). Capital accumulation theorists focus less on the relations of production and more on actions and events that function to increase capital accumulation. David Harvey argues that capital in general, working with the state and mediated by the financial system, creates a built environment where consumption is increased in order to address the crises of accumulation. The built environment itself is a means to accommodate over accumulation and facilitate increased future profit. However, periodically the built environment must be devalorized when it no longer supports efficient production. When this happens, capital seeks a spatial fix that is often facilitated by the state. Urban sprawl is an aspect of the built environment that stimulates consumption and provides opportunities for a spatial fix (Gottdiener 1994). Henri Lefebvre, as analyzed by Gottdiener (1983), re-conceptualizes space as an intrinsic part of capitalism. First, space is not simply a means of production but also a force of production. That is, space is a distinct and necessary element in the development of capital, “especially through the operation of form or design” (Gottdiener 1985, 123). Second, space and spatial form is intrinsic to producing and maintaining the relations of production. In other words, spatial form is important in managing the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Third, particular spaces and spatial forms are social products. Thus space is both a product and a producer. Space is intrinsic to the reproduction of society. As Gottdiener notes:

Thus space has the property of being materialized by a specific social process to act back upon itself and that process. It is, therefore, simultaneously material object or product, the medium of social relations, and the reproducer of material objects and social relations. (Gottdiener 1994, 129)

A number of Marxian political economists provide important insights into the workings of the land market and the production of urban form. Lefebvre re-conceptualizes space and the state. Lefebvre's ideas are compatible with the concept of the socio-spatial dialectic (Soja 1980) and theories of the state, which highlight the states relative autonomy (Jessop 1990). Also,

Lefebvre's ideas are compatible with a structuration / realist framework which conceptualizes social-spatial structures as will be described below.

Causes of Sprawl

Neoclassical and Marxian political economy theories offer a number of explanations for urban sprawl. Most discussions on sprawl implicitly incorporate the assumptions and/or conclusions of these theories without critical consideration. Harvey and Clark (1964, 2-6), note that sprawl is caused by many actions and circumstances, including: 1. Individuals developers making independent, uncoordinated land use decisions thought to be economical for them individually that result in sprawl as an unintended consequence. This includes speculation to develop land as well as to hold land from development in anticipation of a more profitable future opportunity. 2. “Physical terrain which is not suited for continuous development” such as mountains, rivers, and swamps. (This has not been a significant factor in Florida until quite recently because political, economic, and technological factors overcame the disadvantages of development of unsuitable lands such as wetlands. However, new environmental policies for the protection environmental lands may now facilitate a form of sprawl in the name of environmental protection.) 3. Transportation infrastructure and technology. For example, interstate highways and cars have enabled people to live further from their work places, enabling a sprawled development pattern. 4. Uneven government regulation and other policies, such as taxation policies favoring single family home ownership. Their analysis is positivist in that it focuses on the level of events or appearances, which are easily correlated, with the phenomenon of urban sprawl. It is based on a neoclassical political economy model that recognizes that the state impacts the phenomenon of urban sprawl. Sprawl is caused by inefficient markets and the failure of the state to regulate land development and the housing market properly. They argue that better development pricing would address the costs of sprawl, thus the market (under appropriate government regulation) would control sprawl.

Other authors have cited government actions, e.g. subsidies, lack of planning or wrong planning, as contributing to sprawl (Audirac et al. 1990; Ewing 1994; Freilich and Peshoff 1997). Technological and material determinism abound in explanations for sprawl. Advances in transportation technology (e.g. automobiles and high capacity highways) that have enabled longer distance commutes from home to work by providing shorter travel times at lower costs are commonly cited. It is worth noting also that the availability of cheap gasoline resulting from a separate, but nevertheless linked, global political-economic system has been an important facilitator as well. Some have tempered this reasoning by noting that “none of the …technologies forced the decentralization of either population or employment. Rather they permitted it to happen” (Levy 2000, 26). Interestingly, the argument is not always the simple enabling power of particular technologies, but the incompatibility between certain technologies, material objects, travel practices, and urban form. For example, it has been argued that dense development patterns are incompatible with high capacity highways. In other words, if we build high capacity highways (instead of mass transit facilities and services) then low density, single-family housing is the preferred and complementary land use (rather than high density high rises). An interesting explanation of the how sprawl is generated based on neoclassical assumptions is Teaford’s Post-Suburbia (1997). First, residential demand creates a single use residential suburbia. Civil society fragments government authority through the creation of multiple suburban government units to enact exclusionary zoning to provide a protected residential refuge for the wealthy and upper middle classes. Fischel (1999) asserts that suburbanites’ resistance to moderate density development is matched with restrictive zoning that precludes a higher density development. Second, because residential uses are not self-sufficient, i.e. they cannot pay for the public services they require such as public schools, a second phase of demand results in the addition of commercial and industrial uses to suburbia. Civil society (suburban residents) then utilizes the state to change the previously restrictive land use controls in order to allow other uses so that the state can collect sufficient tax revenues from non- residential uses to provide necessary services to civil society at large. Teaford’s (1997) argument that capital moves to suburbia in order to supplement the tax base of the state and support civil society discounts the consideration that capital finds a way to move into suburbia in

order to tap the growing consumer market and labor supply (Williams 2000). Third, a demand balance is sought which allows certain types and amounts of non-residential uses as long as the impacts from these uses, e.g. pollution, do not destroy the original amenities of suburbia which civil society was seeking. Teaford's model is demand driven. While he incorporates the actions of the state, he does so without reflection upon the interaction of the different elements in society: civil society, state and capital. Teaford's analysis is generally consistent with neo-classical explanations that individual households have created an expanded suburbanization. A combination of higher incomes and transportation improvements has enabled middle and upper income households to move to "more desirable" locations on the urban fringe (Mieszkowski and Mills 1993). These "natural" causes of sprawl are identified as improvements in transportation infrastructure, technological improvements generally, and long term increases in household income. These explanations fit well within the neo-classical paradigm. However, Mieszkowski and Mills (1993) also note that social (chiefly racial) and political factors accounted for a large amount of American suburbanization. This is another example of a strongly economic/technological determinist position recognizing the role of social and political forces. Finally, the demand for residential sprawl is driven by "pull" factors, i.e., the amenities of a suburban or semi-rural environment, as well as "push" factors, i.e., escape from the social problems of cities such as crime which together constitute a powerful force for and argument in support of the generation of urban sprawl (Audirac 1990; Fischel 1999;Gottdiener 1994). But urban sprawl is more than just expansion into suburbia and a fleeing from the perceived problems of the central city; it is the intentional planning and development of an inefficient, low density living environment. Fischel (1999) notes that there are successful suburban communities with moderate densities such as Reston, Virginia; Columbia, Maryland; and Foster City, California. He argues that "suburbanites are willing to live in relatively high- density communities as long as they get good public amenities, especially safety" (Fischel 1999: 161). Zoning has been blamed as a cause, or at least a contributing factor, to low density residential development (Fischel 1999). There are also neoclassical arguments against excessive sprawl. Fischel argues for a "Pareto optimal" urban form whereby

efficient suburbanization and efficient densities are achieved when owners who wish to increase the intensity of use of their land cannot do so without causing the aggregate value of land in their neighborhood or (small) community to decrease (Fischel 1999: 151)

Freilich and Peshoff appear to integrate social and political factors in the production of sprawl. However, at the heart of their argument is a veiled economic determinism with implicit notions of both neoclassical economics and Marxian political economy. They note that

Sprawl has been promoted by social forces, which reflect the desire for a rural lifestyle coupled with an urban income. It is also encouraged by the political power of development interests and supported by legislative mandates that sustain income tax deductions for single family homes and property taxes and inadequate development funding of infrastructure generated by new development (Freilich and Peshoff 1997: 186).

Their "social forces" are consumers demanding a particular commodity. Their "political power" is the power of capital to influence and direct the state. Finally, there are few studies within Marxian political economy that explicitly address the issue of urban sprawl. Marxian scholars address urban sprawl within the broader context of urban form in association with the processes of capitalism or forms/stages of capitalism. For the most part, space is viewed as an epiphenomenon.

Costs of Sprawl

Many studies have attempted to assess the costs of sprawl and more generally, the costs of different urban patterns. The Costs of Sprawl study by the Real Estate Research Corporation in 1974 is the most frequently cited. Many others have been summarized by Burchell (1997), Burchell et al (1998), Ewing (1994), Frank (1989), and Nelson and Duncan (1995). In general, these studies identify increased infrastructure and transportation costs, environmental degradation and loss of farmland. Freilich and Peshoff (1997) argue that sprawl is responsible for six major crises of American metropolitan areas. These include decline of the central city, environmental degradation, waste of energy resources, fiscal and infrastructural problems, loss of farmland and lack of affordable housing. Authors identifying similar costs are Easley (1992), Harvey and Clark (1964), Nelson and Duncan (1995), and Williams (2000).

Other impacts of sprawl include environmental deprivation, deprivation of access (Popenoe, 1970), and increased taxes (Burchell 1997). Hall (1997) suggests that decentralization of urban areas is leading away from the possibility of sustainable communities. Williams (2000) suggests that suburban sprawl leads to a loss in the overall quality of life.

Solutions to Sprawl

The costs of sprawl have resulted in a rising chorus that sprawl be controlled (Leo 1997; Longman 1994; Sierra Club 1999). In response, the state has enacted regulations purporting to combat the perceived ills of urban sprawl in a number of places including Florida, Oregon and New Jersey (Kasowski 1991). The success of these programs at discouraging urban sprawl is uneven and hard to measure (Fulton 1990; Knaap and Nelson 1992; Sierra Club 1999) In Florida, the Governor's Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns (1989) identified a number of key actions to combat urban sprawl. These include: 1. The establishment of urban service areas and urban expansion areas by local governments; 2. Economic and regulatory incentives to promote concentrated urban development; 3. The use of full marginal cost pricing policies for public infrastructure; 4. A strategic state urban policy coordinated with major transportation investments; 5. Land development regulations that promote a functional mix of land uses (housing, employment, shopping, social, and recreational opportunities); 6. Acquisition of urban, beachfront, waterfront, rural and environmentally sensitive lands; 7. Improved intergovernmental coordination and discouragement of sprawl at the county-wide level; and 8. Integrated transportation planning with a focus on public transportation. Essentially, these recommendations draw upon neoclassical theorizations and focus on modifying the demand for land use in a variety of ways. Only acquisition of land for public use, addresses the production of land uses (albeit in a limited way), which is the subject of Marxian political economy. This approach is touted by many (DeGrove 1996; Sierra Club 1999). Some of these recommendations have been implemented to some degree. But others have proved to be

quite controversial and have never been implemented except by a few individual local governments. One of the more interesting recommendations deals with the idea of a functional mix of land uses (housing, employment, shopping, social, and recreational opportunities). It would seem that the problems of urban sprawl associated with the location and density of development could be solved by a functional mix of uses. In other words, it’s not sprawl when development has an interrelated mix of uses. This identified solution to urban sprawl is represented in both planning and development literature in many forms. The New Urbanism movement and Neo- Traditional Development concepts are currently in vogue as a desirable planning/development paradigm. Often it is stated that monolithic suburbia has lost its “sense of place and identity.” All of these ideas are currently packaged as a new way to plan. This is exemplified in a variety of publications including journals such as New Urban News and publications of the American Planning Association such as the Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook (2002). But in many respects, these are not new ideas. The inclusion of commercial and industrial uses in suburbia was sought in the 1930’s to augment tax revenue and pay for needed services and often this was linked to a need for a more balanced community. Moreover, the attraction of most suburban areas depended in large part on their aesthetics, and thus for example the development of Irvine, California in the 1960’s followed a plan that would “imbue the residential environment…with a sense of place and identity to which residents (could) relate on an intimate scale” (Teaford 1997: 94). In some respects, the edge cities described by Garreau (1991) fit this idea. But are such mixed use developments not sprawl if they are located on the expanding fringe of urban areas? Many observers argue that government intervention is a necessary component of limiting sprawl. They typically focus on the degree to which regulation corrects or interferes with the operation of the land market (Burchell 1997; Easley 1992; Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 1989). However, the line between too much and too little land use regulation is vague and shifting. Urban growth boundaries (UGBs) have been touted as the best solution to urban sprawl (Easley 1992) while others suggest that adverse effect on housing affordability shifts growth to less restrictive exurban sites and presumably increase urban sprawl (Audirac et al. 1990). Sarasota and Manatee counties implemented weak versions of urban growth boundaries and this dissertation will assess their effectiveness. UGBs have also been applied in Oregon, where the

assessment of efficacy at controlling sprawl has been examined by looking at the effect on land prices. Increase in land value within UGBs and lower values outside UGBs have been touted as an indication of effectiveness (Knaap and Nelson 1992). Local governments in California, Washington, Colorado, and Kentucky have also adopted UGBs (Nelson and Duncan 1995). The common belief is that urban sprawl is a problem and the common solution is to promote compact urban form. However, many of the studies identifying the costs of sprawl have been cited for methodological difficulties or not measuring real world sprawl patterns (Bourne 1996). The effort to define and measure sprawl is ongoing (Ewing 2003). Additionally, the question of what is the ideal urban form does not have a clear answer (Hall 1997). Some argue that the market should be allowed to determine this ideal urban form and that urban sprawl is a process toward that end (Gordon and Wong 1985; Peiser 1989). Clearly, ideal urban form depends on what elements of the urban environment one wants to optimize, e.g., capital accumulation or equity; economic efficiency or community values. The debate has a geographical-historical basis in that desirable patterns of previous generations are touted as good or bad (Handy 2003). Finally, others oppose the action of the state as infringing on the rights of landowners to make decisions and further suggest that the good intentions of planners to control sprawl have unanticipated and undesirable results (Holcombe 1990; O’Toole 2001). It is apparent that we lack a "single dominant theory or paradigm of urban growth and development to which we might adhere [and] there is little agreement or information on the nature and origins of the broader problem of inefficient urban forms, and even less about what to do about them" (Bourne 1996: 691, 708). Therefore, this dissertation proposes to delve in to a set of deeper level theoretical constructs to analyze the subject of urban sprawl and how it is encouraged and discouraged by the local-state.

CHAPTER 2

SOCIAL THEORY AND SPATIAL THEORY

This chapter examines and synthesizes structuration and realism theories (Giddens 1984; Sayer 1992). The social production of space theorizations provide by Gottdiener (1985) is shown to be compatible with this synthesized approach. This synthesized theory is applied to the concepts of space, state, and law in combination with other more concrete theorizations of Lefebvre (1991) and Jessop (1990). The new theorizations provide a foundation for the research model of Chapter 3.

Structuration

The primary concept of structuration theory is the duality of structure and agency. Human action is enabled and constrained (structured) by rules and resources, collective referred to as structure or structures. Human action also recursively reproduces rules and resources. Thus structures are simultaneously the medium and outcome of human action. Structures are intangible and are constituted beyond specific times and places and as such are not restricted to the interaction of specific individuals. “Structure exists, as time-space presence, only in its instantiations in such practices and as memory traces orienting the conduct of knowledgeable human agents” (Giddens 1984, 17-25). Rules guide people in the routinized conduct of their daily lives. Rules guide regularized behaviors that are implicitly acknowledged as being appropriate and enable people to manage their daily lives and understand the world around them. Some rules provide meaning and ontological security. These are called rules of legitimation because they sanction and provide an acceptable rationale for particular behavior. Other rules provide the means and methods for

social interaction and communication of meaning. These are called rules of signification because they enable the effective communication of meaning through signs and symbols. Rules are only tacitly understood and the explanation of a rule (discursive formulation) is at best an interpretative approximation of the rule (Giddens 1984, 21-23; Cloke, Philo and Sadler 1991, 102). Resources are used in the application of power or domination. There are two types of resources: allocative resources, which include command over objects, goods or material phenomena; and authoritative resources, which include command over people. Rules of legitimation and signification are needed to access and apply resources. (Giddens 1984, 15-16 and 33; Cloke, Philo and Sadler 1991, 103) Power is distributed asymmetrically, however even those with little power can and do influence those with greater power. This is the "dialectic of control" (Giddens 1984, 374). Systems of interaction or social systems (systems) are regularized social practices situated in time and space. Systems that are a “deeply embedded” part of life are called institutions. Institutions do not have a reality or existence separate from the action of people. But the everyday, routinized, purposive practices of people give institutions a sense of stability, concretness and permanence. Yet, as they are reproduced daily, they change. Institutions include the “state” as it is broadly conceived and subsets of the state such as education and court systems as well as planning/zoning operations (Moos and Dear 1986). In strict theory, human consciousness exists at three levels. The discursive consciousness is the level at which humans express their thoughts, emotions and reasons for action. The practical consciousness consists of extensive knowledge about life, how to survive in the world, how to cooperate, compete, cope and get things done, as well as notions of ontology and epistemology. Humans act with knowledge and skill by drawing on this knowledge, which is mutually shared with other members of their particular group and to some degree with all humans. The unconscious is not accessible by the discursive consciousness. It contains the depth of life history, knowledge of experiences, emotions and thoughts which are usually filed away from conscious recall (Giddens 1984, 4-7). Humans draw upon these "three layers of cognition/motivation" to act (Giddens 1984, 376). This is described by the stratification model of human action. Human action is stratified into three moments: a) Motivation of action derived primarily from the unconscious and which is

Unacknowledged Reflexive monitoring of action Unintended conditions of action consequences Rationalization of action of action

Motivation of action

Figure 2: Structuration Model of Human Action (Giddens 1984)

important for overall plans and "situations which in some way break with the routine" (Giddens 1984, 6); b) Rationalization of action derived from the practical consciousness; and c) Reflexive monitoring of action. See Figure 2. Humans act with knowledge, skill and intention and nothing can happen except through human action. However, purposive/intentional actions result in unintended consequences that may also form unacknowledged conditions for future action. Thus history and geography are contingently produced. One consequence is that “the outcome of a series of rational actions, undertaken separately by individual actors, may be irrational for all of them.” This may be, in part, a reason for the production of urban sprawl. A second situation occurs where the “unintended consequences of action form acknowledged [and unacknowledged] conditions for future action” (Giddens 1984, 8-14). This is a case where the production of a sprawl pattern of development in the past, i.e., the process and product of sprawling development, conditions thinking about how development has occurred and should occur (rules of legitimation). This leads to subsequent actions by landowners, speculators, developers, bankers, and the state and forms the conditions for more sprawl in the future. It is useful to think of structuration occurring along three axes. First, the stratification model of human action which includes (preexisting or past) conditions for action and (future) unintended consequences of action necessarily has a historical or time element. This can be represented most easily on a horizontal axis. See Figure 3.

Historical- Produced Events (e.g., Geography System state policies, built unacknowledged Structure environment, urban form): conditions of Agency Intended and unintended action (The Present) consequences of action (The Past)

Figure 3: Structuration Over Time

The mutual constitution of systems, structures and place is a continuous, recursive, and historically contingent process (Pred 1984). Specific places at specific periods of time evolve from past geographies. In other words, certain elements of the past have been reproduced in whole or part into the present, albeit in modified forms, so that the present also includes new, unexpected and unintended elements. Second, the duality of agency and structure, whereby structure is the medium and outcome of human action, may be represented on a vertical axis. This duality can be expanded to include systems of interaction including institutions. According to Moos and Dear (1986, 240), “structure acts as the mediating device which provides the rules that characterized the social system and thereby enable various forms of action; and in performing these acts, agents reproduce these structures and the social system (recall that reproduction implies change).” Structures are the medium and outcome of action and “of the situated practices that make up the

Agent

Structure

System

Figure 4: Structuration Duality (Moos and Dear 1986, 241)

system” (Moos and Dear 1986, 233). See Figure 4. The actions of agents are bounded by time, space, unacknowledged conditions, and unintended consequences. Within these bounds, agents draw upon the three levels of consciousness as their actions are motivated, rationalized, and monitored. Finally, a third axis accounts for space and spatial scale. Each place is linked to other places from local to global. Global structures intertwine with and influence local structures and vice versa. This research examines particular places at particular periods of time while recognizing that the historical geography of each place is critical to understanding the present and future. Figure 5 shows all three axes in diagrammatic form.

System Conditions Produced consequences Structure for action of action

Agent

Trans- Scale

System

Conditions Produced consequences for action Structure of action

Agent

Figure 5: Three Axes of Structuration

Realism and Structuration

The essence of realism is that there is a real world that exists independently of the human senses. Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, many geographers practiced a simplistic form of realism, termed naïve realism, which took for common sense that the world could be un-problematically

observed and described. A more critical realism posits that the real world contains both observable and unobservable elements, for example social structures. Unobservable elements, especially those of the social world, can only be known through our conceptualization of them. Social knowledge is constructed. Our knowledge of the world is incomplete, fallible, and theory laden. This stems in part from the fact that the social world is historically and geographically contingent. Further, the notion that the world can be understood by examining regularities is rejected (Cloke, Philo and Sadler 1991; Sayer 1992). The following section details some of the primary elements of realism and proposes a synthesis with structuration theory. The structuration ontology consists of agent/system/structure. The realist ontology consists of object/concrete (or realist) structure/mechanism/event. Objects and realist-structures have inherent powers and liabilities to produce and inhibit events in time-space. Objects encompass the structuration elements agents, systems, and structures, as well as non-social materials. Objects may be observable or unobservable. Objects may be simple or complex, composed of many elements and forces (Sayer 1992, 87). Although structuration theory emphasizes social processes, material objects are important. Figure 6 accounts for material (non-social) objects in space. This does not imply a spatial or material fetishism. Rather, it acknowledges the fact that non-social objects have powers and liabilities to enable or constrain events. Mountains, fertile plains, temperate climates, rain forests, wetlands, oceans, and sandy beaches all have unique attributes that enable and constrain human activity. The social world uses objects in the non-social world in varying ways including the production and subsequent use of all manner of manmade objects such as interstate highways, jet planes, bulldozers, water pipes, houses, farms, cities, and urban sprawl. Sayer (1992, 28) notes that “social phenomena have a crucial material dimension and are closely associated everywhere to relationships with nature, both in its virgin and its artificially transformed states.” The relationship between people and the non-social material world is contingent. That is, the intrinsic nature of people is not dependent on material objects nor is the intrinsic nature of material objects dependent on people. “Non-social phenomena are impervious to the meanings we attach to the. Although one could say that such objects are ‘socially-defined’, they are not socially produced” (Sayer 1992, 26). The fact that the relationship is contingent does not mean it

is not significant. On the contrary, the development process can tremendously alter the natural landscape. The relationship of people and cultures to the material world is inexorably complex and tightly woven. The very nature of a particular culture is defined in part by its use and manipulation of the material world. Marx’s historical materialism is rooted in this truth. Nevertheless, although cultures and their rooted social practices are defined in part by material relationships, these relationships are contingent, not necessary, within the constructs of realism. In other words, particular social systems require and depend upon particular material objects for

Agent

Structure

System

Material Objects

Figure 6: Structuration and Material Objects

existence. The relationships are necessary for the particular social system, but are otherwise contingent because many social systems are possible. Objects may be combined with each other to form realist structures. Structures are

“defined as sets of internally related objects or practices” (Sayer 1992, 92). These relations are necessary for the structure to exist. Moreover, their necessary relations may define the objects (in whole or part). This is opposed to contingent relations. However, contingent relations may and likely do affect the manifestation and operability of the powers and liabilities of objects and structures. While structures are necessarily related objects or practices, their actual existence is historically specific or contingent. In other words the combining of different objects in time- space to form structures is historically-geographically contingent. Thus, for example, the

particular combination of state regulations and development and actions is a contingent occurrence. Structures under the realist definition are not the same as structure under structuration theory. Realist structures include structures (as conceived by structuration theory) as well as agents, systems, and material objects connected via necessary relations. Ideology, reasons, attitudes, beliefs, routinized ways of living/acting, etc. (rules and resources) are all implicated in the combination of practices to form the structures of realism. In order to distinguish between the two conceptualizations, these structures will be termed “realist-structures.” Sayer (1992, 92-93) provides a relevant example of a realist-structure that includes material objects in Figure 7 below:

Owner of Property

Landlord

Private property Rent in land or buildings Tenant

Non-owner of property

Necessary, internal relations

Figure 7: Realist Structures (Sayer 1992, 93)

In this example, the necessary relationships with private property in land or buildings are not relationships with the material aspects of the object. The relationship with the material aspects is contingent. However, the material object has been imbued with particular cultural,

economic, and political meanings that are an intrinsic part of regularized social practices or systems. It is the way the object is conceptualized that forms the necessary relationships. In other words, it is not the land or the building, but rather how private property and rent is conceptualized and used that form the linkages between agents, systems, and structures. The necessary relationship with material objects is socially defined.

Although, in one sense, material objects are intrinsically meaningless, their use and functioning in society is concept-dependent. Conversely, although systems of meanings and beliefs are not themselves material, they usually require some material mode of objectification if they are to communicate and function socially in a stable manner. In other words, practices, material constructions and systems of meanings are reciprocally confirming (Sayer 1992, 33).

Socially defined material objects exist only because they are produced and reproduced by human action. Thus the meanings (structures) and practices (systems) associated with socially defined material objects link agent and material object.

…the attributes of place are achieved through social action, rather than through the qualities inherent in a piece of land, and that places are defined through social relationships, not through nature, autonomous markets, or spatial geometry. Such factors as topography and mineral resources do matter, but they interact with social organization; the social and physical worlds mutually determine the reality of one another (Logan and Molotch 1987, 45).

This realist ontology of objects and realist-structures fits well with the structuration ontology with the addition of the concepts of a differentiated and stratified world, where by objects combine resulting in emergent powers and liabilities (those powers and liabilities which would not otherwise be present without such combination). Additionally, “people and institutions (systems) themselves invariably exist within several social [realist-] structures” (Sayer 1992, 94). Thus, the idea of an overlapping, stratified, complex, interwoven, heterogeneous ontology of objects and structures (agents/structure/system) is present in both structuration and realism. This view has particular relevance to the study as we consider formal or informal relationships/ coalitions between particular factions and/or agents of the state, capital and civil society that have the power to create particular spaces of sprawl. These coalitions may be temporary or seemingly permanent (sedimented practices in time-space) and they may promote or oppose particular forms of growth.

This above discussion is important not only to satisfy the concern that the ontologies of structuration and realism are generally compatible, but also for reasons of epistemology. Gregson (1987) argues that Giddens uses generalizations to describe an ontology of complex heterogeneous objects. She states that this is inconsistent with Sayer’s method of using rational abstraction to “carve up the world in terms of necessary, or internal, relations between objects and causal structures” (Gregson 1987, 84). However, it should be clear that both Giddens and Sayer describe a complex world of heterogeneous objects. But Realism provides a method of rational abstraction, which slices through the complexity, is not inconsistent with structuration, but simply provides a method to do empirical research. Objects and realist-structures have inherent powers to cause events, i.e., essentially create the social world as well as the built environment including urban sprawl. Rules of meaning, such as modernity, post-modernity, the drive for capital accumulation or a suburban paradise, etc., are structures that have powers and liabilities to enable and constrain (structuration) human action and produce events and space (the built environment). Reasons for acting are part of the cause of action. Therefore, what people think and their reasons for acting are part of the cause of action and the resultant event. Events may be over determined (caused by more than one object or structure). Also, the operation of powers and liabilities, and the resultant manifestation of events is a contingent matter. Contingent conditions may exist that either inhibit or promote the operation of a mechanism (power or liability). Objects and realist-structures may have conflicting mechanisms/counteracting forces that inhibit or modify the production of a particular outcome/event. Society is an open system, with no regularity. This is consistent with the structuration concept of unintended consequences. An essential proposition of realism is that the analysis of events and the appearance of regularized relationships among events do not solve the question of causation in the world. Causation can only be grasped by an understanding of the objects and realist-structures that have powers to cause events, while always keeping in mind the contingent nature of relationships and outcomes. Sayer states that

a model of an area ought to refer to the actual mechanisms by which the built environment is reproduced and which drive economic activity in such areas. Any theory or model which merely took the outputs of these processes as given, modeled the relationships between these outputs however regular they might be

and then extrapolated them into the future, as if they were the primary determinants of urban development, was by contrast an elaborate mystification of urban development. (Sayer 1979, 853-4)

Realism addresses the relationship between structure and agency similarly to structuration theory. This is known as the "transformational model of social activity" (Pratt 1995). Structure is the medium and outcome of human action, i.e. "conscious human activity, for the most part unconsciously reproduce[s] (or occasionally transform[s]) the structures that govern their substantive activities of production" (Bhaskar in Pratt 1995: 64).

Space and Spatial Form

Most conceptualizations of space focus on the existence and location of objects in space. (Recall that objects include agents, systems, structures and material objects in space.) Objects do not constitute space, but objects use space, have spatial properties and interact with other objects in space and time. Space is a container for the relative positioning of objects (proximity and distance, coincidence, betweeness, overlap, center/periphery, outside/inside, front/back). Space is necessary for objects to have extension and movement within and across scales (local/global/trans-scale). Powers and liabilities extend over space, affecting the nature of relationships between objects and realist-structures, whether there is a relationship, and the strength and frequency of interaction. Space in the abstract has no powers or liabilities, but the arrangement of objects in space, i.e., spatial form, must be accounted for in determining the relationships among objects in space. Sayer argues that spatial forms (arrangement of objects in space) are contingent. He notes that "most social processes have a significant degree of 'spatial flexibility' which, within limits, enables the same or very similar social structures to be reproduced in a variety of different configurations" (Sayer 1992, 149). He concludes that other than accounting for the spatial properties of objects, such as extension and movement over space, that abstract space has no role in the development of theory. However he argues that empirical research, which focuses on concrete events, must take into account the particular spatial contingencies that enable or constrain the operation of powers and liabilities, but because these are contingencies, "the spatial content of social theory is inevitably restricted" (Sayer 1992, 150). Social theory must focus on the objects and realist-structures themselves, not space.

Given that 'space as such' is literally a contentless abstraction there can be no 'science of space' as some geographers used to believe. The 'fetishization of space' consists in attributing to 'pure space' what is due to the causal powers of the particular objects constituting it (Sayer 1992, 148).

The question that geographers must confront is not whether (abstract) space itself has causal powers and must therefore be incorporated as an independent agent, but whether or not spatial form is necessary to theorizations about these objects and their relationships, social processes and produced outcomes. The possibility of alternative spatial forms does not mean that any spatial form will do. We should ask, do particular objects and processes require and/or produce certain spatial forms? And, while spatial forms most certainly result from "contingently-related processes including unintended consequences," these spatial forms may also be "deliberately arranged so as to manipulate and take advantage of the constituent causal mechanisms" and create intended and unintended outcomes like new towns or sprawling suburbia (Sayer 1992, 149). Logan and Molotch (1987, 30-31) note that “place entrepreneurs seek to alter the conditions that structure the market. … They lobby for or against specific zoning and general plan designations.” These capital interests act to address site specific concerns which may be small and add only incrementally to the overall urban pattern or may be large. Large property capital interests may act to develop huge spaces and even “new towns” which in and of themselves dictate urban form and serve as catalysts for development of surrounding areas (Community Affairs 1993). Capital interests may not have specific development plans for the time period but may speculate upon future demands and act accordingly. Plans adopted by the local-state often seek to delineate spatial patterns for many years into the future, typically 10 to 25 years. Figure 8 shows an abstract spatial juxtaposition of objects. The operation of powers and liabilities of each object in this particular juxtaposition results in particular social processes and outcomes, e.g. decentralization and sprawl.

Agent A B C

STRUCTURE D E F

System G H I

Socially Defined J K L Material Object

Material Object MN O

Spatial Form: the spatial arrangement of objects in space

Figure 8: Structuration and Spatial Form

Giddens (1984, 118-132) provides a way to conceptualize how agents use space-time through structuration. People act at particular places or locales. Locales may be homes, cities, or nation-states. Locales are internally regionalized into different regions/settings where routinized social practices occur. These settings allow for the co-presence of actors. These settings of interaction are characterized by form (boundaries: physical or symbolic markers which may be permeable and/or overlap), span (extension over time and space), duration (length of time of encounters), and character (ordering of locale into the wider social system, e.g., differentiation of living and working spaces). The settings of interaction have various qualities,

for example: front/face regions that are open to public viewing and scrutiny; back regions where activities are hidden; regions that are enclosed or permeable; and central and peripheral regions. At each setting of interaction, the particular attributes of the setting, the actors present and the nature of the interaction together form the context of the activity. "Context thus connects the most intimate and detailed components of interaction to much broader properties of the institutionalization of social life" (Giddens 1984, 118-119). The routinized practices in time space equate to "time-space structures deeply engrained in the conduct of everyday life and they themselves are embedded within a more intangible realm of structures" (Cloke, Philo and Sadler 1991, 109). In other words, the routinized practices that are central to the theory of structuration necessarily occur at particular locations and times that have particular properties that enable and constrain the activity. The space-time juxtaposition of objects and realist-structures in Figure 8 represent a particular time-space structure, i.e. routinized practices linking system, structure, agent and material object with a particular space-time configuration. Note however that the figure only represents a snapshot of in space-time. Spatial form is dynamic as agents move through space and as agents, institutions, and social processes operate to rearrange space over time. Harvey's "spatial fix" represents one example. Another example is urban sprawl as it spreads, raw land is developed, old buildings are replaced and urban infill fills in previously sprawled areas. The spatial form and realist-structures of urban sprawl as it is contingently manifested in the United States include a set of necessary relationships among social and non-social objects. Suburban sprawl in America could not exist without a particular usage of non-social objects such as cars and roads and how we define and use them For example, spatial form and spatial movement for different activities such as working, sleeping, shopping, and recreating overlap in irregular ways, sometimes viewed as compatible, other times in conflict. New urbanism approaches that promote a functional mixing of compatible uses continue to vie against earlier land use views that argued for a separation of uses as evidenced in Euclidian zoning. Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs) are contrasted with gated communities. Planning studies reflect the implicit view that spatial form makes a difference. This is especially true with regard to the transportation-land use relationship. For example, the spatial form of neighborhoods including density and street layout (connectivity) affects travel behavior

and in-turn, traffic congestion and air pollution. It has even been suggested that urban sprawl could contribute to obesity. See Ewing 1997, McCann 2003, Handy 2003, and Moore and Thorsnes 1994. Each locale has its own structures and systems, although it is more accurate to conceptualize these local structures and systems as variations of and linkages to structures and systems that have a wider geographic extension or scale. Structures and systems (institutions) extend over time-space (time-space distanciation). Structures and institutions common in the United States extend into and are the medium and outcome of local activities. Cox and Mair (1988) argue that state, capital, and civil society have dependent relationships with local conditions. These conditions may be material (physical plants, infrastructure, housing, etc.) and/or social (local knowledge, business networks, social networks, family ties, etc.). Investment in the built environment may lead to a high degree of immobility (e.g., finance and utility firms). In other cases, the need for and advantages of local business knowledge and relationships are developed over time and cannot be easily reproduced (e.g., real estate and news firms). Cox (1998) describes the relationship of local agents and organizations across scales (spaces of engagement). Agents and organizations may operate extra-locally to address a local concern. Thus, the local-state (e.g. Sarasota or Manatee counties) may interact with extra-local- state organizations (e.g., the State of Florida or federal agencies) which have powers to influence (enable and constrain) a particular issue. An example of the social-spatial relationships between material objects, agents, structures, and systems is simply that everyone imbues space (material objects and groupings/patterns of objects) with particular meanings derived from their own particular beliefs and ideologies. There are spaces of speculation, reasonable expectations, property rights, capital accumulation and capital devalorization, production, consumption, beauty, fear, desire, and spaces that compose unique combinations of attributes and meanings, i.e., places. Rivers, wetlands, downtowns, shopping malls, office parks, walled subdivisions, big backyards with barbecue grills, rental apartments, mobile homes, slums, ranchetts, working farms, and open spaces are all imbued with meanings. Generally, places are constituted by combinations of many objects distributed in unique patterns, such as sprawl. The patterns themselves have particular meanings and uses. However the meanings, value, actual use and desired use of these spaces by

residents, planners, politicians, developers, speculators, lawyers, environmentalists, entrepreneurs, government agencies, and local and multi-national corporations differ considerably. All of these agents may be categorized into capital, state and civil society. Drawing upon Lefebvre's (1991) conceived space or representations of space, these imbued meanings represent how we understand space through signs and codes. It is a way of knowing. It reflects a particular epistemology, a way of understanding and representing the world around us. This second space is used to explain and control and order the world around us (Soja 1996). Urban planners, developers and politicians create maps, diagrams, plans and regulations that purportedly reflect existing and desired future realities. These representations of space are very powerful instruments for filtering and ordering information and projecting particular truths. These representations of space are imagined, but replace the "real" with their representations. These conceived spaces are used by agents to describe, interpret, manipulate, and transform material first space. For example, Bourne (1996) notes that urban spaces are fragmented by racial segregation, poverty, and political and institutional organization of space which influence growth and investment in particular regions. Finally, space (material objects in space, spatial patterns and imbued meanings) is the outcome and medium of social action. Bourne (1996) describes how this process may occur. However, in his evaluation, the production of urban space does not appear to account for unintended outcomes and contingency.

The processes of urban development and, specifically, of hyper-suburbanization, once set in motion, are difficult to reverse or redirect. All of the arrows point in the same direction toward maintaining the existing system and "culture of development." Builders know how to build on greenfield sites. Financial agencies feel more comfortable and secure with new rather than old property assets in their investment portfolios. Regulatory agencies jealously guard their existing levers of power, while households prefer the space privacy, and assumed security of the suburbs over the perceived uncertainties and risks of the central city. They are all familiar with and benefit from the existing system. Attitudes are cumulative. Images, fears, and preferences become self-reinforcing. As a result, the locational choices available to most consumers are overly narrow, despite arguments to the contrary. The result of this legacy becomes a more-of- the-same: type of uneven urban development (Bourne 1996, 705).

Evaluation of spatial properties requires concrete conceptualizations of space. Objects (e.g., land forms, buildings, maps, laws, plans, ideologies, people, corporations, agencies, organizations) and processes (capitalism, urbanization, decentralization) require

a spatial conceptualization (spatialization) to evaluate powers, liabilities and necessary and contingent relationships. How do objects and realist-structures come together in particular spatial forms to produce urban sprawl? More particularly for this paper, what is the theoretical relationship between the spatial form of urban sprawl and the agency of the local-state? This research examines urban sprawl as a space-time structure, a dynamic arrangement of material space, which is linked to and produced by routinized social processes. Further, the spatial form of urban sprawl will be examined for its dialectical relationship with those processes that produce it.

The Social Production of Space

Gottdiener (1994) theorized the social production of space based primarily upon structuration theory and selected elements of a modified Marxian political economy as advocated by Lefebvre. The basic elements of the theory include: 1. Urban spatial form is a contingent product of action and structure. Urban spatial form is created by both global and local actions and structures. 2. The spatial form of deconcentration is both a product and process which impacts other social processes. Urban spatial form is not simply an epiphenomenal outcome of economic forces. 3. Urban spatial form is the product of state, capital, and civil society. National and local-state actions contribute to the production of urban form. Urban forms are not simply the product of economic forces. 4. The local-state works indirectly through policy, particularly the regulation of land use and tax powers. 5. Pro-growth and anti-growth ideologies influence spatial form and the hegemony of economic growth ideology is a historical-geographical product. 6. Urban spatial forms, including deconcentration, is neither functional nor dysfunctional for capitalism, but simply a contingent result.

The State

Social activity may be formally categorized as political, economic, and cultural. These activities are associated with the state, capital and civil society, which can be posited as realist structures. Each of these realist structures is composed of structures, systems, and agents which are necessarily related. Additionally, state, capital, and civil society have necessary and contingent linkages and there is considerable overlap and porosity among them. These structures have co-evolved over time-space and have mutual dependencies and influences (Jessop 1990; Lauria 1997). “The state is neither completely autonomous of, nor completely dependent on, the wider society of which it is a part” (Staeheli, Kodras, and Flint 1997, xxi).

The mixing of markets and regulation can be traced at least as far back as the English enclosure laws, which ushered in the industrial revolution, the modern State, and the property commodity. In the New World, regulation was as necessary to form the settlement at Plymouth as it was to make the desert bloom into modern Phoenix. As Polanyi remarks, “Regulation and markets, in effect, grew up together.” The form of regulation changes, but not its omnipresence and necessity (Logan and Molotch 1987).

The state is composed of many individual structures, including rules legitimating its very existence. The essential aspect of the state is the general acceptance of its authority to establish and enforce legal codes for acceptable political, social, and economic behavior (Jessop 1990), noting however that most behavior is controlled not by written codes but by deep structures (rules and resources). Vincent (1987, 224) writes that the state is “first and foremost a mental category which informs the attitudes of individual toward authority.” Jessop (1990, 341) writes that the state’s social accepted function is to “define and enforce collectively binding decisions on the members of a society in the name of their common interest or general will.” The state is also an institution (system) of political power, an enduring set of social practices extended over time-space. These practices may be categorized into three areas: 1. ensuring continuity of power over people, material resources, and space (territory); 2. providing certain needs of civil society including health, safety, and welfare; and 3. enabling commerce and capital accumulation through the establishment, protection, and regulation of private property rights (Vincent 1987; Saunders 1979). Habermas (1975) argues that the state periodically suffers a “legitmation crises” because of a conflict between providing for the general welfare and providing conditions for capital

THE STATE

Settings of Interaction Spatial Form Span Scale Duration Character

AGENTS

STRUCTURES

Resources Rules

SYSTEMS

Control Civil Needs Capital Needs

Executive Legislative Judicial

SOCIALLY DEFINED MATERIAL OBJECTS

Laws Buildings Machines

Plans Offices Roads

Taxes Service Desks Water Pipes

Figure 9: The State

accumulation. Both of these functions are intrinsic elements of the state and must be reconciled (Lake 1997). The particular ways in which the state addresses these competing goals is historically contingent. Jessop (1990) argues that the state is influenced, but not controlled by capital and civil society. The state is composed of people who act, recursively reproducing the structures and systems of the state. People act through organizations including legislative, executive, and judicial. Organizations are historically contingent realist-structures that exist within the broader realist-structure of the state. See Figure 9. Organizations often have material and spatial components, i.e. concrete and visible aspects of the organization having a material presence in space-time. These include things like buildings and machines located at particular places, e.g., city hall, utilities, roads, and police cars. Additionally, rules of the organization are codified (materialized), including laws, standard operating procedures, and position descriptions. State organizations have unique powers enabled by the particular combination of structures, systems, agents, and material objects. These are “emergent powers” that would not exist unless the particular realist-structure existed (Sayer 1992, 119). Organizations conduct the most visible actions of the state. Ultimately it is the people within the organizations who must choose to act to reproduce the organization. People within organizations occupy positions, i.e., “a social identity that carries with it a certain range (however diffusely specified) of prerogatives and obligations that an actor who is accorded that identity (or is an “incumbent” of that position) may activate or carry out: these prerogatives and obligations constitute the role-prescriptions associated with that position” (Giddens 1984, 84). People act based on written codes and unwritten rules, but also may act on their own initiatives (Skocpol 1985). People do not mindlessly follow organizational directives. Thus agents from technicians who review building blueprints to planners who claim special knowledge regarding optimum land uses to county commissioners who make policy decisions – all act within a particular position/organization framework, yet also apply their unique set of knowledge, skills, values, and beliefs (much, but not all, of which is shared with others) and act in purposive ways creating intended and unintended outcomes.

It is not the state which acts: it is always specific sets of politicians and state officials located in specific parts of the state system. It is they who activate specific powers and state capacities inscribed in particular institutions and

agencies. And, as in all cases of social action, there will always be unacknowledged conditions influencing the success or failure of their actions as well as unanticipated consequences that follow from them (Jessop 1990, 367).

State agents such as politicians, career bureaucrats, and planners may also be libertarians, liberals, conservatives, socialists, environmentalists, pro- and anti-growth advocates, capitalists, and even apathetic bureaucrats simply attempting to keep a job. They are influenced by business and civic organizations, elites, workers, retirees, and many others who themselves act to contingently constrain and enable the particular characteristics, powers, and actions of the state. The reproduction of the state is historically contingent and intertwined with capital and civil society. Through the structuration process, the state is recursively reproduced. The process of reproduction includes reflexive self-regulation, i.e. “causal loops which have a feedback effect in system reproduction, where that feedback is substantially influenced by knowledge which agents have of the mechanisms of system reproduction and employ to control it” (Giddens 1994, 376).

The process of reflexive self-regulation of organizations depends upon the collation of information which can be controlled so as to influence the circumstances of social reproduction. Information control, in turn, depends upon information storage of a kind distinct from that available in individual recollection, in myths or story-telling or in the practical consciousness of ‘lived tradition.’ The invention of writing, the prime mode of the collation and storage of information in class-divided societies, marks a radical disjuncture in history. This is true not only because the forms of storage and retrieval of information generated by writing allows an expansion of time-space distanciation but also because the nature of ‘tradition’ becomes altered, changing the sense in which human beings live ‘in’ history (Giddens 1984, 200).

Our “information society” has an overwhelming store of information in the sense that no one individual or group can assimilate and master it. Rules and practices for the retrieval and use of information are necessary to manage what would otherwise be information chaos. These rules and practices deal with the evaluation of information to determine what information is relevant and valid for a particular purpose. These rules fall under the rubric of epistemology – how do we know the world? Examples include the scientific method, statistics, logical positivism, realism, phenomenology, and dialectical reasoning. Some rules focus on specific activities such as accounting practices, legal and administrative procedures, and the planning process. Many rules and practices are complementary and others in conflict. Certain rules and practices are accorded

“mainstream” status and are seemingly unassailable often because they are deeply rooted structures and practices (i.e. common sense and institutions). Rules that purport to be “objective,” are nevertheless contingently linked to ideologies and politics. Written codes and procedures reflect deeper rules that enable and constrain action. Yet, these rules and practices, via the structuration process, change over time – sometimes in revolutionary fashion. These stocks of information are created, stored, organized, filtered, retrieved, validated, and used in a variety of ways. One particularly important way is the development, application, and evaluation of formal written laws, codes, and procedures which are themselves a form of stored information. According to Giddens (1984, 21-23)

Formulated rules [structures] – those that are given verbal expression as cannons of law, bureaucratic rules, rules of games and so on – are thus codified interpretations of rules rather than rules as such. They should be taken not as exemplifying rules in general but as specific types of formulated rule, which, by virtue of their overt formulation take on various specific qualities. [further] Laws, of course, are among the most strongly sanctioned types of social rules and in modern societies have formally prescribed gradations of retribution.

Written laws have an “existence” independent from the beliefs, reasons, and structures from which they were derived. Under realism, they can be viewed as socially defined, material objects. Laws, as written words, have power only to the degree that people accept them as appropriate, i.e., consistent with beliefs /structures and systems/social practices, including rules and practices for the use of information, and are therefore willing to abide by and or enforce them. In other words, the application and efficacy of laws depends upon their congruence with structures and systems, primary of which is the ideology of the ‘rule of law,’ the belief that we must abide by laws enacted by the state. The application of laws is uneven, often has unintended consequences, and forms a condition for future actions. Therefore, sometimes action occurs according to the “letter of the law” and other times laws have a “flexible interpretation.” But how is the meaning of the law determined? Legislative intent is not always clear and transparent. Symbolic rhetoric, dense or esoteric legal terminology, and hidden loopholes may hide intent. The state initially legislates, that is, creates the law with a presumed intent. The legislative process is a political process.

The effect of the law is determined by the actions of people and the degree to which they follow the law. Laws both enable and constrain action, but not in a rigid, predetermined fashion. Rather, laws are used by people through interpretation and action. Actions purported to follow the law (whether by state agents or others) may be challenged via the state institution of the courts. Here, evidence and its qualifications as well as the process are crucial legal constructs (structures and systems) that are use to interpret specific laws. The legislative institution may change the law. Many laws are vague, sometimes intentionally so, and may have multiple interpretations depending on contingent conditions. Some laws are purposefully written as guidelines while others are meant to be strictly applied. Some laws are reinterpreted over time. Though the written words do not change, the original meaning of words is simply forgotten (lost from our readily retrievable stocks of knowledge) and redefined. Finally, some laws are simply not enforced; they become antiquated and ignored, except for those instances when they may prove useful for a particular purpose. Thus, forgotten laws are re-invoked, often for purposes unrelated to the original intent of the law when it was written. In all cases, the invocation and enforcement of law is dependent on the resources of authorization and allocation available to those affected, i.e. the asymmetries of power and dialectic of control (Giddens 1984). First, law has a hierarchal scale aspect whereby federal, state, regional, and local-state institutions have varying degrees of authority/power. Second, different factions and agents of capital and civil society have varying resources with which to utilize or avoid the application of the law. Whether the law is contested in an administrative, political, or legal arena, the power of the parties will influence the outcome. Many laws deal with the concept of private property rights. Other laws deal with the concept of the general public welfare. Comprehensive plans and zoning codes address both of these concepts. The planning process, in which the state plays a central role, is an institutionalized practice that is linked to the broader legal process (production, execution, and enforcement of laws) as well as to capital and civil society. Plans and codes are adopted by legal ordinance and are legally binding.

The state, often in conjunction with capital and civil society, produces many events and tangible products. These include roads, schools, water systems, prisons, et cetera. These tangible products are enabled and constrained by formal (written) laws, codes, and procedures.

Synthesis

First, the social production of urban space is compatible with structuration and realism. Structuration and realism establish the abstract, underlying ontological framework. Urban "theory should be integrated into a wider theory of society [and] not only attempt to identify the mechanisms which produce empirical patterns but also locate the social relations upon which these mechanisms are based" (Sayer 1979: 861). Second, the social production of urban space draws upon elements of neoclassical economics and Marxian political economy. It integrates political and cultural forces with economic forces and it highlights the importance and role of space and sociospatial structures. Third, the social production of urban space, due in part to its underlying structuration/realism framework allows for an integration and synthesis with other ideas. In other words, its complexity is not limited and thus it can better match the complexity of the real world. It allows for other ideas, such as regulation theory and the socio-spatial dialectic, to be added. "Any model needs to address the complex situations of actors, their relative importance, the difficulty of separating the actor and role, and the myriad shifting ‘political’ links that bind them. The implications are that there should be a model which addresses the dualities of context and process and structure and agency” (Ganderton 1994, 812). Fourth, the social production of urban space allows for a full consideration of the state in the land development process. The state is a "critical actor in the development process" (Healey and Barrett 1990, 96). Finally, the social production of urban space is amenable to the application of a realist epistemology (Ganderton 1994; Gottdiener). Realism enables us to look beyond the epiphenomena of events and delve into the deeper level causal factors that produce the spaces of urban sprawl in the social production of urban space framework (Sayer 1979, 1992). Realism overcomes the problem of urban sprawl studies based on generalization at the level of events through the process of concrete research. A realist

epistemology attempts to discover the generative causes of sprawl. Realism provides the flexibility to conceptualize the non-regularity of the land development process and avoid the structuralist-functionalist tendencies of Marxian political economy (Ganderton 1994). The structuration-realism framework facilities a consideration of what would initially appear to be incompatible approaches. Sayer notes that "On some occasions, approaches and theories which appear to be quite different are in fact quite compatible and non-contradictory. Moreover, it is often fruitful to bring opposing theories into a critical engagement with the aim of choosing between them or evolving a better theory" (Sayer 1979: 858).

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH MODEL AND METHODOLOGY

Chapter 3 outlines a new research model. The underlying epistemology for research is described. Finally, the methodology used in carrying out the research is described. Urban patterns are produced incrementally, intentionally and unintentionally by people in many ways, for example, a small number of large property-capital interests command a significant portion of the local real estate market through the acquisition and development of large land areas; a larger number of smaller developers and builders develop subdivisions and build dwelling units; consumers purchase and live in and ultimately resell dwelling units; and states enable and constrain development via planning, zoning, and provision of roads and infrastructure. Actions are enabled and constrained by structures, systems, objects, and realist- structures as well as other produced events, e.g. subsidized infrastructure, tax incentives, land use plans and pre-existing land use patterns. The produced events constitute acknowledged and unacknowledged conditions, which enable and constrain actions. All action is bounded by unintended consequences, time, and space. The overall model is schematically outlined in Figure 10. Agents (AG), structures (ST), systems (SY), and material objects (MO), and socially defined objects (SDMO) like real estate, organizations, written laws, physical structures, material technology) are conceptualized within the realist-structures of state, capital, and civil society. The boundaries of state, capital, and civil society are overlapping and porous. There are multiple necessary and contingent linkages. The spatial arrangement of these elements (spatial form) is an extra-dimensional factor which influences the particular settings of interaction. The settings of interaction themselves are dynamic – with variable and overlapping spatial scales.

Through the structuration process, structures and systems are recursively reproduced. Additionally, individual objects and realist-structures have powers (enabled and constrained by each other). These objects and realist-structures act to produce new spatial forms, new settings of interaction, new policies and plans, and new urban spaces including the spaces of urban sprawl. These actions have intended and unintended consequences, thereby producing acknowledged and unacknowledged conditions for future action. Objects and realist-structures are constituted by material objects, agents, structures and systems. Realist-structures are "sets of internally (necessarily) related objects" (Sayer 1992, 92). Objects and realist-structures also have contingent relationships. Both objects and realist- structures have powers to produce or hinder events. Objects and realist-structures are not simple elements but typically complex combinations of elements. Socially defined material objects, including laws and land use plans, have a physical or concrete aspect. Yet it is their structures and systems, imbued upon the object by agency that is critically important. Thus, raw land becomes real estate with use and exchange values, and a multitude of unique meanings and uses. The model may be expanded to address this complexity by describing the following: 1. The specific rules, resources, systems, agents, and material objects that individually and in combination constitute objects and realist-structures that operate to produce urban sprawl. 2. The social and spatial constituent elements/aspects of objects. 3. Designation of the object or social structure as a component of state, capital or civil society or some combination thereof. 4. The spatial form / relationships of these objects and realist-structures. First, in Figure 11 that follows, the general categories of rules, resources, institutions, agents and material objects are identified drawing upon Moos and Dear (1986) and Giddens (1984, 31).

SPATIAL FORM Events: Unintended and Intended Consequences STATE / CAPITAL / CIVIL SOCIETY

New Spatial Form / AG AG AG Settings of Interaction A B C

ST ST ST D E F

ACTIONS Policies / Plans / Actions Unacknowledged and SY SY SY G H I VIA POWERS/ Acknowledged MECHANISMS Future Conditions

SDMO SDMO SDMO J K L

Produced Space / MO MO MO M N O Sprawl

SPATIAL FORM

Figure 10: Research Model

Political Institutions Symbolic Orders/ Modes of Discourse System: Economic

Institutions Norms / Morals / Culture

Legal Institutions

Resources of Authorization Rules of Signification Structure: Resources of Allocation Rules of Legitimation

Politicians Developers Businessmen Speculators

Agent: Bureaucrats Influential Individuals

Activists Media Agents Voters Landowners

Socially Defined Land Uses: Houses, Stores, Farms; Real Estate: Unbuilt and built; Written laws, plans, codes; Object: Infrastructure, Transportation and Communication Systems Services: schools, police, health and medical

Figure 11: Types of Structuration Objects (After Moos and Dear, 1986)

The model should identify in the greatest detail possible, the specific rules, resources, systems, agents and material objects, their relationships, powers and liabilities and connections to the production of urban sprawl. This research attempts to uncover the dominant structures that influence the actions of the local-state with regard to sprawl development to the extent that they can be discursively interrogated and show how these structures are incorporated into and applied by objects and realist-structures to produce the event or outcome of urban sprawl. The following rules and resources are representative and illustrative, not comprehensive and there is considerable overlap. Individual rules are not equal in their acceptance, use, distribution, and power to enable or constrain action within and across places. Some rules may be mutually supportive and compatible and while others may conflict. I want to clarify that the following "rules" are not rules in the strict structuration sense. Rules and ideology cannot be so easily stated, if in fact they can be stated at all. Rather, these statements are indicators of rules. Typical rules of legitimation in U.S. society include: 1. Pursuit of the “American dream” (economic): actions of individuals and organizations seek to maximize wealth through land development through the use of land as a factor input. This is the idealized measure of success in America. 2. Pursuit of the “American dream” (social): actions of individuals and households to live on their own land. 3. Frontier opportunities and rights: actions of individuals, households and organizations to seek out and occupy new territory. 4. Free market capitalism: the ideal economy is one where the market operates freely, guided by an economic rationality, unfettered by state intervention. 5. Property rights: "It’s my land and I can do what I want with it!" The right of a landowner/developer to a reasonable economic return is privileged over the rights of neighbors and the community at large unless there are identifiable and significant damages that accrue from a particular use or activity. 6. Vested Rights: Once someone has a right of use (property right), it should not be taken away.

7. Homestead, the right to live on property one owns. 8. Economic development: economic growth and development is an absolute necessity and shall not be unduly threatened. 9. The role of government is structured by conflicting rules within our pluralist society. In general, these rules reflect an attempt to regulate the role of government and balance capital accumulation with social needs (legitimation). 10. Fundamental rights to safety, education, health, recreation, and a clean environment. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 11. Race and class ideologies. Rules of tolerance/intolerance, racism and ethnic identity. (Segregated communities verses freedom to travel and live in a place of choice). 12. Capitalist imperatives: constant innovation, competition, consumer choice. 13. Importance of technology and technological determinism, progress for its own sake. (imperative of modernism) 14. Planning tenets: rationality, public interest, science. 15. Urban growth and development paradigms, including neoclassical economics, which are often unacknowledged assumptions supporting policies and actions. These include assumptions of "natural" growth patterns caused by market demand and economic determinism. Also included are more abstract structures within the political economy paradigm by theorists such as David Harvey (1982) such as how the built environment is necessarily manipulated to address crises of over accumulation through devalorization and spatial fixes. However, this type of structure is far removed from the discursive consciousness of most people. It is argued that these rules are not pure forms of any one particular paradigm/ideology, but rather our rules are a complex and chaotic mixture of these ideas. 16. Urban sprawl definitions and biases that are often intertwined with many of the aforementioned rules. These include generally discussed, but often disputed notions of the costs and benefits of sprawl. 17. Postmodernity reflected by an acceptance of multiple truths and/or the rejection of truth which would include eclectic landscapes, image over reality, simulacra, rejection of conceptions of ideal urban form, etc. (Harvey 1990).

18. Institutional rules: survival of the institution/bureaucracy, its how we do it and how we have always done it. Rules of signification must enable communication, i.e. provide a basis for people to communicate and interact in efficient and effective ways. Jürgen Habermas notes that we should ideally expect each other to speak comprehensibly, sincerely, legitimately (in-context), and truthfully (Forrester 1985). However, these rules of signification become jumbled with rules of legitimation and resources of power. People communicate in ways to mask meaning and intention. Rules of legitmation essentially authorize these departures from truthful communication in order to accomplish particular objectives sought by agents and institutions, whether in state, capital, or civil society. The rules of signification described below should be understood with the caveat that communication is often not straightforward, but deceptive and that sometimes such deception is legitimized or at least rationalized in order to accomplish particular objectives. 1. The language of business: Businesses communicate with each other and the public by describing business actions, profits and losses, business risks, etc. The rule is not the specific message or method of communication. It is the mutual and unquestioning acceptance of the method and message content as a valid communication of business concerns. 2. The language of real estate: Real estate brokers, buyers, and sellers communicate through advertising and marketing methods and personal appeals regarding the claimed use and exchange values of real estate. It is the mutual and unquestioning acceptance of the method and message content of real estate concerns. 3. The language of law: The land development and land planning process is permeated with legalisms stemming from notions of property rights. Underlying the specific laws, codes and procedures are legal notions of fair play, due process, and ethical behavior which reflect rules of legitmation that are communicated in unique ways including contracts, law suits, legal pleadings, court orders, etc. The rule is not the specific message content or method of communication. It is the mutual and unquestioning acceptance of the method and message as a valid communication of legal issues.

4. The language of planning and zoning: The planning process incorporates "professionally acceptable" ways to collect and analyze data to identify problems and needs and make projections of future conditions. Plans and regulations are written in particular formats. Planners present themselves in a "professional way," i.e., as unbiased facilitators of the public good. Planning arguments are overwhelmingly positivist and quantitative. It is the mutual and unquestioning acceptance of the method and message content as a valid communication of planning issues. 5. The language of government relationships with capital and civil society is governed by rules of access and influence. Moos and Dear (1986) identified four styles of political language: a. hortatory: to engender support b. legal: to resolve conflict c. administrative: to serve particular groups and exclude others d. bargaining: to deal All of these methods are accepted as appropriate ways for state agents to communicate with other state agents as well as capital and civil society. 6. Urban Sprawl: a. Common sense understanding and communication of what urban sprawl is, i.e. "I know it when I see it." b. Competing paradigms of urban sprawl, and urban growth and development in general have accepted means of communication and explanation. Neoclassical economics, Marxian political economy, and urban production of space. Regardless of the actual paradigm, adherents to the paradigm often accept the paradigm unknowingly and in turn accept the arguments of the paradigm without question. Thus methods and content of arguments are accepted as truth. Resources of allocation include: power over objects. 1. Money capital and the ability to finance development 2. Land ownership 3. Political connections 4. Social connections Resources of authorization include: power over people.

1. Political connections: elected officials, political parties, entrenched bureaucrats. 2. Social connections: business associations, social clubs. 3. Power to make, influence, interpret and/or implement state policy (including laws and codes). Systems of interaction and institutions are recursively produced and reproduced by the actions of people. Political institutions include the different scales of the state: local, e.g., county and municipal governments; regional, e.g., water management districts, regional planning councils; and state, e.g. the State of Florida and its statewide agencies. These in turn are constituted by executive, legislative and judicial subsystems. Within these sub-systems, functions are institutionalized into bureaucracies such as planning and zoning. The concrete organizations, e.g. county government, advisory councils, governing boards, functional agencies are the material manifestations or outcomes of a structuration process whereby regularized social practices, commonly accepted beliefs and organizational arrangements, and individuals combine with socially defined material objects in a regularized way. Economic institutions include producer services; broadly defined to include finance, insurance, real estate, business services, personal services, retail/wholesale trade and others; Manufacturing; Agriculture; Construction; Mining; and others. These institutions are the medium and outcome of routinized behavior and ways of thinking. Symbolic orders/modes of discourse are the actual means of communicating. A few examples: Businesses communicate with profit-loss studies, cost-benefit analyses, and feasibility and market studies. Businesses apply concepts such as capitalization, time value of money, and relationships of supply, demand and price. Planners use population and land use projections and maps showing existing and future conditions. Developers craft site designs, architectural renderings and phase development schemes to address perceived market conditions and profit potential. Cultural values, norms, and legal institutions constitute sanctioning systems. Sanctions are applied explicitly through the development and enforcement of laws, rules and codes. Other values and morals are involved implicitly through what is generally deemed to be acceptable behavior and the dialectic of control. These permeate what we do and how we communicate. Second, the social and spatial constituent elements/aspects of objects is addressed. Material objects that are produced and/or used by people have necessary and contingent

relationships with agents, structures, and systems. We can examine a house and its proximate surroundings, e.g. yard or neighborhood, as an example. The house site, the house, the proximate surroundings and other related material objects are all imbued with particular meanings derived from the agents’ own beliefs and ideologies. Before the house is built, the land becomes the site of speculation, investment and planning. Once built, the house becomes of place of residence and investment, having both use and exchange values (Logan and Molotch 1987). The landowner, speculator, investor, homebuilder, planner, occupant, and supplier/servicer of goods and services all relate to the site in unique ways. These agents are also members of particular organizations and institutions. These agents are also related to each other as they speculate, negotiate, buy, sell, plan, finance, build, occupy, maintain and service the house. Through the process of rational abstraction we can identify social and spatial properties/constituent elements/aspects of land uses, such as houses, in order to show how they are linked to agents, structures, and systems, sometimes forming realist-structures. Social aspects of land uses include: 1. Type: residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, etc. 2. Style: detached, attached, multi-family, high rise, mobile home/manufactured housing 3. Value: exchange value, use value 4. Attractiveness: aesthetics 5. Cost: to build, service and maintain 6. Suitability: vis-à-vis natural environmental conditions, e.g. wetlands, flood plains. 7. Compatibility: with proximate uses/users 8. User profile: built to meet the “needs and wants” of a particular demographic, e.g., income, age, household type 9. Aggregate qualities of the area, neighborhood Spatial aspects of land use include: 1. Location: at various scales (region, city, neighborhood) 2. Density: dwelling units per acre 3. Intensity: employment per acre or square footage of working space 4. Distribution: throughout the area: with similar or dissimilar uses, with compatible or incompatible uses

5. Complementary or competitive relationship with other uses in space (functional relationships) 6. Accessibility 7. Pattern of land uses at various scales 8. Urban/suburban/rural distinctions Clearly, there is overlap, and contingent and necessary relations between social and spatial aspects. Land uses are linked to other material objects such as roads, schools, and cars. Each of these objects have social and spatial properties/constituent elements/aspects. Third, objects and realist-structures may be conceptualized into state, capital and civil society. State, capital and civil society have fuzzy, pervious, overlapping boundaries (Staeheli, Kodras and Flint 1997, xxiii) and are fractured in their support for and opposition to urban

State (S) S,C Capital (C)

S,C,CS

S,CS C,CS

Civil Society (CS)

Figure 12 State, Capital, and Civil Society

sprawl. Some elements will reside almost completely within the ambient of state, while others such as public-private advisory committees will cross these conceptual boundaries. Figure 12 above shows this in diagrammatic form. Fourth, the spatial form/relationship of these objects and realist-structures: The production of space occurs through structuration within overlapping and dynamic settings of

interaction. Form, span, duration and character characterize these settings of interaction. They constitute particular spatial-temporal configurations of material objects, agents, structures, and systems. The form and span are the particular counties of interest bounded by symbolic (political) markers, although permeable to social interaction. The character draws extensively from the wider, embracing social systems and structures. Within the settings of interaction, objects and realist-structures have powers/mechanisms to produce and/or discourage the production of urban sprawl. The extent to which these objects and realist-structures are successful at producing sprawl (or alternative development patterns) depends on a variety of factors: the presence and choice/invocation of ideologies (reasons and rationales) that enable or constrain objects and realist-structures to take actions, strength of powers, asymmetry of powers among objects and realist-structures, necessary and contingent relations and conditions that enable or constrain the operation of these powers/mechanisms, over-determination of events by multiple causative forces, and actions which deviate from the norm motivated by unconscious reasons and unintended consequences. The overall spatial pattern of objects and realist-structures, as it exists and is produced by state, capital and civil society, conditions thought and action. The spatial form reacts back upon the process of structuration to re-produce urban space.

Epistemology and Research Method

How do we know the world? Neoclassical economics utilizes a positivist epistemology that attempts to explain urban form by identifying regularity among events. Marxian political economy utilizes a dialectical method which eschews the world of appearances for deeper causes associated with the structure of capitalism. However, Marxian political economy typically stresses structural functionalism to the detriment of agency and contingency. Realism provides a way of understanding the world that avoids these problems. Sayer notes that

It is important to think outside of the box, to break away and critique commonsense and the unexamined and taken-for-granted character of the form and process of urban development. We need an alternative analysis of [the] problem which questions the rationale, powers, and structure of the institutional in its social context, that is, critically evaluates social definition and construction of the problem, the institution, and the effect of policy scientists (Sayer 1979: 854).

The realist epistemology followed here is compatible with a social constructionism that posits the social construction of knowledge. That is, the real world is understood and interpreted through a cultural context rather than via uncritical observation. It is argued that a critical realism can assist in identifying and understanding the particular paradigms and ideologies that would otherwise conceal how they condition social actions including social research (Schwandt 2001). Additionally, the question of positionality is important. Social scientists are located or positioned within various overlapping realist structures. Their positionality affects their understanding of the object of research. In considering issues of feminist research, Harding (1987, 9) states

We need to avoid the “objectivist” stance that attempts to make the researcher’s cultural beliefs and practices invisible while simultaneously skewering the research objects beliefs and practices to the display board. Only in this way can we hope to produce understandings and explanations which are free (or, at least more free) of distortion from the unexamined beliefs and behaviors of social scientists themselves. … Introducing this “subjective” element into the analysis in fact increases the objectivity of the research and decreases the “objectivism” which hides this kind of evidence from the public.

All research is biased and theory laden, therefore a recognition and acknowledgement of a researcher’s positionality is important (Johnston 2000). In this dissertation, the researcher is a practicing urban planner intimately familiar with the planning and regulatory history of urban sprawl in Florida. Further, the researcher was previously active in state programs to regulate sprawl. The researcher took steps to clarify his position to the interviewees (see appendices). Finally, the researcher consciously considered how his positionality, including any prior opinions of urban sprawl would affect the objectivity of the research. Realist research includes the following: First is the identification of concrete objects because objects have powers that can cause or disallow events to take place. This would include individuals and institutions as well as material objects. Second is the rational abstraction of objects. Each concrete object is composed of one or more aspects. Rational abstraction is a conceptual exercise in the identification and separation of the abstract aspects of concrete objects. Abstraction identifies the essential characteristics of objects. Essential characteristics are those which are internal to the object and constitute the

definition of the object. This is contrasted with incidental characteristics which may represent formal or categorical relations of similarity, or contingent or temporary conditions. Third is the identification of realist-structures, i.e., sets of internally related objects or practices. Objects constituting realist-structures have necessary and contingent relationships. Conceptualization of realist-structures starts with the examination of each object, its various aspects and its relationship to other objects. Questions to be asked include: 1. What does the existence of this object presuppose? 2. Can it exist on its own as such? 3. If not, what else must be present? 4. What is it about the object that makes it do such and such? 5. What is it about the social structure that might produce the effects at issue? (Sayer 1992) Fourth, spatial form and relationships may be addressed similarly. The questions would be altered as follows: 1. What does the manifestation of this particular spatial form presuppose? 2. Is this spatial form necessary for the operation of particular powers? 3. How is this spatial form produced? Fifth, retroduction is the mode of inference in which events are explained by postulating (and identifying) mechanisms that are capable of producing the event. The problem here is that the production of events often depends on numerous contingent conditions. Other structures or objects, which are not necessarily related, may constrain or enable the event. Therefore, we cannot use events to determine necessary relationships. Instead, we must,

collect evidence for or against its [the mechanisms] existence, and the elimination of possible alternatives. [At] first, the process may not be a direct or linear one, often it is an iterative one, the model being refined in an ongoing process. … [this] implies a far more exploratory structure and a challenge to the common form of presentation of results. Secondly, the process of conceptualization and re- conceptualization is central throughout the whole endeavor. Thirdly, the use of retroduction may necessitate the application of new methods of 'detection' for sensing the 'reality' of new causal mechanisms (Pratt 1995, 67).

The goal of this research is explanation: explanation of the actions of the local state in the production of urban sprawl. The answers to the following six research questions will provide this explanation.

1. What policies and actions of the local state encourage urban sprawl in some ways and discourage it in others? 2. What generates, enables and constrains these policies and actions? 3. How (mechanisms/processes) do policies and actions of the state help to produce the intended and unintended consequences of urban sprawl? 4. What are the particular manifestations of urban sprawl (land use characteristics, phases of development) that are facilitated by actions of the state? 5. How do the spaces of urban sprawl (acknowledged and unacknowledged spatial conditions) influence the actions of the state? 6. How do different places produce different sprawl? Specifically, how do the two places in the case study produce different sprawl? The research method consists of multiple research actions. Research actions are not necessarily conducted in a chronological or linear fashion. Rather, research should be pursued in a recursively iterative fashion. Initial conceptualizations must be tested and refined as data is gathered through interviews and document research (Pratt, 1995). The research actions were: Select two local states that are similar in order to allow a research focus on a limited set of differences, focusing primarily on state actions that may affect sprawl development patterns. Numerous county pairings throughout Florida were examined. Sarasota and Manatee counties were selected for three reasons. First, they had substantial similarities in demographics, growth rates, physiography, and historical growth patterns. Second, they had substantial growth and development histories and projections. Third, there were no anomalous or unusual features in either county that would substantially enable or constrain growth and development, e.g., military bases or substantial environmental zones such as the Everglades. Analyze the actions of each local state with respect to urban development and sprawl. Of particular importance here are the institutionalized comprehensive and land use planning activities. These activities became a focus of the study as they were the primary means by which the local states sought to direct or manage development. Examine local documents: plans, regulations, laws, reports, demographic data, physical data, historical records, news media, etc. The researcher drew upon years of experience with the topic of urban sprawl regulation in Florida to review an extensive body of literature used by state and local governments in this effort. Each local planning agency maintained libraries of local

planning documents. Every document in the libraries was examined for relevance. Working files were also consulted as prompted by interviews or questions raised by the primary document review. Local public libraries and other governmental records centers were also accessed. The focus was on the local government comprehensive plans which constituted the core of local state actions to direct land use patterns. Kenny notes that

A planning document, possibly more than any other written text, articulates the ideology of dominant groups in the production of the built environment. Consequently an examination of documents such as the Portland Comprehensive Plan provides a means of analyzing the social and political ideologies that are to be transformed into physical form (Kenny 1992, 176).

The examination of written documents including plans, laws, and other documents that describe policies and programs, and purport to explain intent or justify actions necessarily involves an analysis of the text, i.e. discourse analysis. Tett and Wolfe (1991) address the subject of discourse analysis and city plans. They note that planners, via planning documents, may distort the issues. Planners have developed particular ways of explaining issues and policy approaches often claiming scientific support for political positions. These practices reflect particular rules of signification and legitimation. Recognizing this, document reviews were based on a critical rather than naïve reading of the text. Interview key agents within the local arena as well as outside experts. The research involved interviews of 27 persons. All currently elected county commissioners and currently appointed planning commissioners in each county were asked for interviews. The majority of these granted interviews. Planning directors and key staff members were interviewed. A small selection of private developers (capital) and growth management activists (civil society) were also interviewed. The interviews were unstructured in order to facilitate unconstrained exploration of issues (Mason 1996). The purpose of the research and the position of the interviewer were clearly explained to each interviewee prior the interview. Specifically, the purpose of the research was not to evaluate whether or not the efforts of the local state were right or wrong or whether urban sprawl was good or bad. Rather, the research was focused on understanding and explaining the actions of the local state relative to the production of the urban landscape. The interviews were conducted confidentially and no quotes from the interviews are attributed to individual interviewees.

Realist epistemology recognizes the theory-laden aspect of social research and therefore no claim is made that the interviews and research as a whole does not incorporate the bias of the researcher. The recognition of possible bias does not eliminate bias but does serve to alert readers to the possibility of bias. Interviews took into account the ability of the subject to explain her activities as well as the ability of the researcher to understand and translate those explanations. According to Giddens, the discursive consciousness is the level at which humans express their thoughts, emotions and reasons for action. A perfect interrogation of human subjects will reveal the “contents” of their discursive consciousness. The mutual knowledge that enables us to carry on our everyday routine activities is generally expressed by actions (e.g. planning and development actions) rather than a discursive explanation of those actions. Thus, close examination of actions and processes will help to reveal the practical consciousness and the "content" of the mutual knowledge which forms the rationalization for actions that produce urban sprawl. However, the underlying and unconscious motivation for action is not accessible. Any interview will fall short of perfection because of the failure to ask the right questions, the failure to understand the answers and the failure to provide answers, which may be intentional or unintentional. Subjects will have varying levels of knowledge and may have hidden agendas and their answers may include sheer speculation or guessing or outright lying. Some will tell us what they think we want to hear. Sayer (1992, 36-38) notes

Particularly where actors state their intentions fairly formally, we should be wary of assuming that what appears to be coherent on paper will be possible in practice; political manifestos provide a good illustration of the danger?...The ‘text’ of actual social processes is usually highly disjointed and often contradictory, … [understanding does not imply agreement]… many social relations and practices are dependent on (among other things) mis-understandings rather than understanding. … Gellner argues, the force of many concepts in society derives from their ambiguity, hypocrisy, deceptiveness and their effect in reinforcing power structures. Political discourse is particularly rich in examples such as the concept of ‘the national interest,’ [or quality of life?]

Whatever the case, human actions and their discussion and documentation of those actions will be purposive, in other words, they will have reasons for their actions and statements (Giddens, 1984, 3-7). Further, this is the only avenue we have to get at what our subjects believe and the reasons for taking the actions that they take.

Any model needs to address the complex situations of actors, their relative importance, the difficulty of separating the actor and role, and the myriad shifting ‘political’ links that bind them. The implications are that there should be a model, which addresses the dualities of context and process and structure and agency (Ganderton 1994: 812).

Analyze development patterns in each county. Multiple field trips were taken to each county, including extensive windshield surveys, particularly along the developing urban fringe. Additionally, aerial photographs, existing land use maps, and future land use maps were examined. Finally, interviews included questions regarding the development pattern. Review and apply relevant literature, e.g. theories of urban development, and urban planning. Literature selections were based on course work in urban geography and urban planning. Describe the patterns of development and sprawl and consider relationships between the actions of each local state and the observed sprawl patterns. Evaluate and compare sprawl in the two counties. Apply the data to the research model. This research does not claim to reveal all underlying intentions or hidden meanings. Like all social research, it is constrained by the limits of language and social interaction. Research is a social activity. Neither does this research seek to mask these realities behind a veil of a methodology that claims to unambiguously identify all causes and effects. It is proposed that the realist methods will illuminate issues that would otherwise be obscured by methods that focus solely on the examination of events and regularity.

CHAPTER 4

SARASOTA AND MANATEE COUNTIES

This chapter is divided into three major sections. The first section provides a description of the primary geographic features of each county, including physiography, ecosystems, climate, demographics, and the economy. Similarities and differences are discussed. The second and third sections review the empirical research data for the two counties, Sarasota and Manatee, respectively. This qualitative data is a chronological description of the policies, plans, and actions of each county relevant to the topic of urban sprawl. The comprehensive and land use plans of each county are highlighted as they are the primary tools by which the local state enables and constrains the production of urban sprawl development. With a few exceptions, the theoretical assessment of these actions is included in Chapter 5.

The Settings of Interaction

Manatee and Sarasota counties are located in central Florida, south of Tampa Bay on the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 13). The high growth metropolitan area including Tampa in Hillsborough County and St. Petersburg in Pinellas County lies to the north of Manatee County. Sarasota County lies to the south of Manatee County. Punta Gorda in Charlotte County lies to the south of Sarasota County. The rural counties of Hardee and De Soto lie to the east of both Manatee and Sarasota counties.

Manatee County

Sarasota County

Miami

Figure 13: Map of Manatee and Sarasota counties in Florida

Physiography, Ecosystems, and Climate

The physiography of both counties is predominately coastal lowlands with very flat relief, rising slightly in the east. Barrier islands frame the western boundaries. Manatee County is larger with a land area of 741 square miles to 572 square miles for Sarasota County The predominant natural ecosystem in both counties is pine flatwoods consisting of poorly drained soils. The coastline includes sandy beaches, marine estuaries, and salt marshes. Floodplains occur throughout both counties and areas near the Gulf of Mexico are vulnerable to hurricane storm surge. Wetlands are scattered throughout both counties and Sarasota County has some large freshwater marshes and swamps. Manatee County includes the Manatee and Braden Rivers. The Manatee River splits the cities of Bradenton and Palmetto. The Myakka River flows through the eastern and less populated portions of Sarasota County (Fernald and Purdum 1996). This area of Florida has a humid, subtropical climate. Summers are hot and wet while winters are sunny, yet mild and dry. Average rainfall is about 50 inches annually (Fernald and Purdum 1998).

Demographics and Political Divisions

Sarasota and Manatee counties have experienced rapid population growth, along with the rest of central and south Florida over the last half-century. Table 1 below shows population growth since 1940. Population growth is projected to continue in both counties as a rapid pace as shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Population Comparisons Manatee County Sarasota County Year Population 10 year ∆ % ∆ Population 10 year ∆ % ∆ 1940 26,098 16,106 1950 34,704 8,606 33 % 28,827 12,721 79.0 % 1960 69,168 34,464 99.3 % 76,895 48,068 166.7 % 1970 97,115 27,947 40.4 % 120,413 43,518 56.6 % 1980 148,445 51,330 52.9 % 202,251 81,838 68.0 % 1990 211,707 63,262 42.6 % 277,707 75,456 37.3 % 2000 264,002 52,295 24.7 % 325,957 48,250 17.4% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2000: Table 1.19 and U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001: Table DP-1

Table 2: Population Projections YEAR Manatee County Sarasota County 2005 280,700 349,400 2010 302,400 371,700 2020 348,200 418,500 2025 370,900 441,600 2030 391,700 462,700 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2000: Table 1.84

Sarasota County has one medium sized city, the City of Sarasota, and three smaller cities. The City of Sarasota's 2000 population of 52,715 has not grown appreciably since 1980, when its population was 48,868 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001; Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1982). The three small cities include Venice, North Port and Longboat Key, which extends into Manatee County. North Port has a small population of 22,797 in year 2000; however, it spreads out over 75 square miles (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2001). Although the majority of North Port is platted into residential lots and has paved roads, it is 90% vacant (Sarasota County 1999). Venice’s population growth has slowed considerably and was 17,764 in year 2000 while the population of the portion of the City of Longboat Key in Sarasota County was only 5,012 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2001). The bulk of Sarasota County's population (70 %) lives in the unincorporated county, which contained 227,669 people in year 2000 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2001). Manatee County has one medium sized city, Bradenton, with a year 2000 population of 49,504 (U.S Bureau of the Census 2001). The bulk of Manatee County's population (73 %) also lives in the unincorporated area. Manatee has four small cities, Palmetto with year 2000 population of 12,571, Anna Maria with year 2000 population of 1,814, Holmes Beach with year 2000 population of 4,966, and Longboat Key with a year 2000 population in Manatee County of 2,591 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2001). A high percentage of the population in both counties is composed of elderly retirees. Sarasota's population is somewhat older. (See Table 3) Both counties exhibit a negative natural increase in population (deaths exceeding births). Population growth is entirely the result of net migration. (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2000: Table 1.72) Projections that the median age is increasing indicate that many of the in-migrants are retired or close to retirement (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2000; Tables 1.39 and 1.41).

Table 3: Age Comparisons Age 65 and over % 65 and over Medium Age Manatee 68,351 27% 45.2 Sarasota 104,304 32% 51.0 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2000: Table 1.31

Both county populations are predominately white: Sarasota County is 92.6 % white and Manatee County is 86.4% white. Blacks compose only 4.2 % of Sarasota County's population and 8.2 % of Manatee County's population. Persons classified as Hispanic compose only 4.3 % of Sarasota County's population and 9.3 % of Manatee County's population (US Bureau of the Census 2001). In sum, both counties are overwhelming white and thus do not exhibit some of the racial characteristics of other southern urban areas. Household sizes are very low in each county. Average household size in Manatee County is 2.29 persons per household. Average household size in Sarasota County is 2.13 persons per household (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001). Individuals over 55 years of age head over 50 % of households in Sarasota County (Urban Land Institute 1999). The low household size creates a demand for more housing units. This can be a factor in the demand for more residential land consumption. Population density in persons per square mile is 356 for Manatee County and 569 for Sarasota County. This number is not tremendously useful because in both counties the population is unevenly distributed and large areas are sparsely populated. The urban areas are best described as low-density urban sprawl. Economies Both counties have historical roots in agriculture. Agricultural activities since the early 1900's have extensively altered the natural landscape through ditching/drainage and land clearing. (Sarasota County 2000) Agriculture remains an important industry in both counties, although significantly larger in Manatee County. The employment profile is distinctly different in the two counties. Manatee County has approximately three times the agricultural employment and twice the manufacturing employment

as Sarasota County, noting that the last 20 years has seen a surge in manufacturing employment in Manatee. On the other hand, Sarasota County has more persons employed in services, particularly retail, and finance, insurance and real estate. Also, Sarasota County has a much higher percentage of construction workers.

Table 4: Selected Employment Statistics Manatee County Sarasota County Employees % of Total Employees % of Total All Industries 101,082 NA 115,689 NA Agriculture 6,030 6 % 2,060 1.8 % Manufacturing 12,869 12.7 % 7,994 6.9 % Retail Trade 18,362 18.2 % 31,480 27.2 % FIRE 3,115 3.1 % 8,396 7.3 % Construction 4,377 4.3 % 8,576 7.4 % Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2000, Table 6.05

The differences in manufacturing and services employment in the two counties indicate how Sarasota and Manatee counties are economically linked. Many service establishments are aggregated in downtown Sarasota, while manufacturing in Manatee County is enabled by the availability of industrially designated lands and supporting infrastructure located outside of the historic boundaries of Bradenton but now surrounded in part by residential sprawl (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1990). There is extensive commuting of employees across county lines. In-migration fuels the economic growth and the residential construction industry in both counties. While retirees moving into Sarasota County demand 25 to 35 percent of new homes, service workers comprise more of the market, demanding between 40 to 60 percent of new homes. New home sales comprise an astounding 75 to 85 percent of the single-family market (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1990).

Sarasota County has a higher per capita income than Manatee County and Florida as a whole. Sarasota County's 1998 per capita income was $37,131 compared to Manatee County's $30,440 and the State's $26,845. The disparity in per capita income has been true since at least 1950, when Sarasota County’s per capita income was approximately 70 % higher than that of Manatee County’s (Council on Economic Development 1962). This is consistent with the percentage of poor persons. In 1995, the percent of poor in Sarasota County was 9.2% compared with 12.15% in Manatee County and 15.2% for the State as a whole (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2000: Tables 5.10 and 5.48). However, in Sarasota County, only 6% of households have incomes greater than $100,000 annually, while 72% of households have incomes of less than $50,000 per year (Urban Land Institute 1999: 9-10). This income distribution is somewhat misleading because of the high proportion of wealth gained from retirement assets. Although Sarasota County is dominated by low wage service employment, personal income is not as low as it might be because of the high numbers of relatively wealthy retirees who draw income from assets. Wages and salaries account for 40% of personal income in Sarasota County compared to 76% nationally. On the other hand, one study showed that service workers are paid 5-20 % less than service workers in other selected southern metropolitan areas (Growth Strategies Organization, Inc. and the Sarasota County Economic Development Board 1997). In other words, Sarasota County has many fairly well off retirees and many poor service workers. Raw residential land costs are reported to be 22 to 25 % higher in Sarasota County than in Manatee County. In 1990, acreage in eastern Sarasota County sold for $7,000 to $10,000 per acre (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1990). Both counties have been experiencing strong economic growth. The region was ranked the top market in the South for expansions and relocation by Southern Business & Development Magazine. The Sarasota/Bradenton area was ranked third in the nation in job growth by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Sarasota County Economic Development Board 1999-A: 4). Sarasota has a growing high tech industry (Sarasota County Economic Development Board 1999-B).

Sarasota County

Sarasota County - 1940 to 1960

During the first half of the 1900’s, the Sarasota economy was predominately agricultural. In 1940, Sarasota County's population was 16,106. 32 % of the population lived in the unincorporated county compared to 48 % in Manatee County. By 1950, the population had grown 79% to 28,827. The population was largely located near the cities of Sarasota and Venice, but was not compact. There was already a significant spreading of the population. By 1960, the population had grown an additional 167% to 76,895, exceeding that of Manatee County (69,168) to the north. 51 % now liven in the unincorporated county which experienced 62 % of the population growth during the 1950’s. There was a dramatic spreading of the population to the east, and up and down the coastline including the barrier islands. There was also population growth in the unincorporated communities of Englewood, at the southwestern tip of the county and North Port. But the bulk of the population was within and surrounding the City of Sarasota. During the 1940's and 1950's, Sarasota County presented an inviting, landscape suitable for living, working, and development. The population was small but growing and land was cheap. The local state did not constrain growth. Sarasota County did not have legal or planning systems in place to regulate or direct land use patterns. Urban sprawl was not an issue. Zoning was not initiated in 1957 and land use planning would not emerge until the late 1960’s. Once adopted, zoning did not address the broader planning issues such as urban sprawl but served to validate a spreading land use pattern (Interview 4). The State of Florida likewise was not involved in land use regulation and up to this time had been in the "business" of growth promotion rather than growth management. Growth promotion was a legitimate undertaking for the county and state government. The nascent environmental movement was weak. Land speculation was evidenced in the extensive subdivision or platting of rural lands in the hope and anticipation of in-migration from northern states. The "city" of North Port in southern Sarasota County was the prime example of these "platted lands." General Development Corporation developed the "community" of North Port in 1959. North Port was subdivided or platted into approximately 86,000 lots (Gray 2000). Residential lots in North Port were

marketed throughout the United States and internationally and many were purchased "site unseen." North Port and other General Development Corporation developments were blatant examples of urban sprawl, oblivious to any concerns that sprawl was an issue. North Port consisted of thousands of acres, including significant wetlands and was designed as a monotonous spread of residential lots with little consideration for non-residential uses. Other than drainage systems, which were necessitated due to the low-lying, wet landscape, urban infrastructure was not well planned or developed. Neither the State of Florida nor Sarasota County had legal systems in place to regulate or control this type of speculative development (Interview 4). Other lands were platted throughout the county, including east of a yet to be designated urban containment boundary. This would create a future legal and political conundrum for the County because of the scattered ownership patterns and quasi-legal “property rights” claims for the construction of residential units in areas that would later be considered by some to be unsuitable for development. Thus, urban density development might occur in an urban sprawl pattern despite the future attempts of the County to plan for more compact development. At this point in time, there were no legal means to deny the development of these platted lands (Juergensmeyer 1999). Politically, it was not even an issue.

Sarasota County – 1960s

By 1960, zoning regulations and maps had been completed for the entire unincorporated county. Subdivision regulations were also in place by 1960. Sarasota County was one of the few counties in Florida that had zoning at this time. However, the Planning Department Director, who led the effort to implement zoning and subdivision regulations, was forced to resign and the Planning Department was downgraded to a Division after the November 1960 election brought an anti-planning majority to the county commission (Interview 4). The "growth is good" ideology represented the dominant attitude of political and civic leadership throughout the State of Florida (DeGrove 1984). Nevertheless, the county continued to implement zoning regulations and during the early 1960's, the lone county planner continued to work on various land use studies, demographic studies, and soil mapping in conjunction with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Existing land use and plat maps were developed for the entire county. Building permits were tracked and

mapped. These background studies provided useful information for development activities and were not used to support land use planning (Interview 4). In 1964, after seeing the benefits of these background studies for providing useful information regarding how the county was developing, the county commission that had previously downgraded the Department to a Division reinstated the Planning Department. However, the focus of the work continued to be zoning and subdivision administration rather than long term planning (Interview 4). In 1968, the State of Florida adopted a new constitution and within a few years adopted or revised a number of statutes, e.g., Chapters 125, 163, and 166 Florida Statutes, that codified the authority of counties and municipalities to develop and enforce comprehensive plans, zoning and other land use regulations (Brown 1994). In 1969, the State of Florida enacted "The Interlocal Cooperation Act," which provided a unified, legal basis for counties and cities to plan and zone land to regulate development (Brown 1994). The State also enacted the "County and Municipal Planning for Future Development Act" to address local government subdivision of land (Juergensmeyer 1999). These political actions and the creation of these legal systems strengthened local government authority but did not specifically address urban sprawl. They also fashioned a planning system that ensured an uneven, inconsistent and fragmented approach to planning because it was controlled by individual local governments rather than at a regional or state level. Finally, the State of Florida enacted laws to regulate land sales in order address the previously uncontrolled subdivision and sale of lots. Population growth and an urban sprawl development pattern continued to expand. By 1970, the population had grown to 120,413, an increase of 43,518 or 57 % over the population in 1960.

Sarasota County – 1969

The idea of land use planning became more accepted culminating in a proposed long- range plan for the containment of urban development in Sarasota County in 1969. The 1969 Plan was authorized by a Special Act of the State of Florida, Chapter 31264, Special Acts of Florida as amended. It provided that Sarasota County and its cities may individually and jointly control their development through planning, zoning, and subdivision regulation (Sarasota County 1969). This Act did not authorize planning for all counties and Sarasota County was one of small number of larger counties that pursued planning (Juergensmeyer 1999).

Importantly, the State did not mandate restrictive planning by Sarasota County. Rather they provided the legal codes via broader legal systems that enabled such planning if the county so chose. Further, the plans were not required to establish strict, inflexible provisions, and could be circumvented by the local governing body when considering particular development proposals (Brown 1999). The 1969 Plan introduced most of the planning concepts used by Sarasota County over the subsequent 30 years. However, this Plan was not the result of either general public input or pressure from the business community. It was a document produced internally by the Planning Department (consisting of one planner and an assistant). The county commission was unwilling to adopt such an ambitious plan and therefore the 1969 Plan did not have any legal force (Interview 4). Although the county commission did not adopt the 1969 Plan, it reflected the planning ideology that had evolved during the course of the 1960s, as planning became a more accepted activity in Sarasota County. This planning ideology contained the following elements (Sarasota County, 1969): A Plan should be: a flexible guideline, not a rigid law or regulation; generalized and idealistic rather than specific; established to address the needs of the whole community to promote the health, safety, convenience, prosperity and general welfare and avoid promoting special interests; unique to local community; based on a professional "policy analysis" while recognizing political aspects of decision making; innovative and of the highest standard; and a sustained effort. The ideas expressed reflect a cautious and conservative approach by the planners as they introduced what was a considered groundbreaking effort to sell the idea of land use planning to the community and elected officials. A significant portion of the Plan attempts to justify the need for a local government planning program and argues for the application of planning to urban problems. The 1969 Plan had very strong and explicit anti-sprawl rhetoric, including the following:

continuing urban sprawl will perpetuate the loss of central business clientele to marginal business endeavors due to unwarranted dissipation of the centralized market

continuing urban sprawl means that more agricultural land will be needlessly taken out of production, more streams, bays and downwind areas needless

subjected to possible pollution, and more beaches, water bodies and other pleasant, natural vistas obscured from view

continuing urban sprawl will mean that the trip from home to work and from home to play will be needlessly lengthened, requiring more vehicles and trips per person, more money and time consumed in travel, and with more opportunity for accidents and other inconveniences.

containment should be preferred as a community development policy over the threat of unrestrained, unregulated, urban sprawl. Only by maintaining optimum population concentrations, and some degree of relatively compact and regularly shaped urban service areas, can the full complement of fully adequate community facilities and services be afforded to a maximum number of residents and at the least possible cost in rising taxes and assessment fees. Decades of development experience have demonstrated that the shape, direction, and density of urban development should not be left to economic chance (Sarasota County 1969, unnumbered pages).

Planners had observed urban sprawl occurring and believed that development controls were needed. We believed that we ought to curtail growth and not just let sprawl go all over this county which was what was happening all over Florida. We thought that it should be curtailed. We knew we didn't have money enough to provide the infrastructure within that area [east of the City of Sarasota but west of I-75] not to say anything about letting it go further to the east [west of the expected I-75 corridor] (Interview 4).

The I-75 corridor alignment was moved eastward at the urging of Sarasota planners working with State of Florida and federal officials for the expressed purpose of serving as an urban boundary (Wilkinson 2001). All areas east of the expected location of I-75 were shown as rural on the future land use map. Additionally, some areas west of I-75 were shown as rural, especially between Sarasota and Venice, and between Venice and Englewood (Sarasota County 1969). Although the 1969 Plan was visionary in many respects and provided the foundation for future planning, the general approach did little to actually control urban growth or discourage urban sprawl. First, the designation of urban and rural areas and the placement of the urban containment line allowed, by the planner’s own measure, for 386,000 full time residents. In the year 2000, 31 years later, the County only had 326,000 residents. Given these facts, it is rather obvious that the containment line was too far east. This raises the unanswered question as to

justification for using the I-75 corridor as the containment line and using the containment idea as justification for moving the line eastward. One likely answer is simply that there were other reasons for the placement of the corridor and that real estate interests were probably involved in the ultimate location of the corridor to the degree that they believed that the road would eventually lead to increased land valuations and profits through real estate development. Second, the Plan did not include any quantitative definition or measure as to what constituted urban and rural development. Qualitative descriptions of these land use categories were flexible and could (and did) allow the continuing development of rural area. Third, the status of the Plan as a guideline meant that it had no true regulatory force or authority to control or direct urban growth By 1970, the County's population had reached 120,413. Significant development was already occurring east of the City of Sarasota and along the coastline. This development was inconsistent with the rural land use designation for these areas in the 1969 Plan. Much of this development was occurring on land that had been subdivided or platted many years earlier, including the North Port development. But other development occurred because the Plan did not restrict the development and because zoning allowed the development. It would be 1975 before zoning was required to be consistent with and implement a comprehensive land use plan.

Sarasota County 1970s

During the 1960’s, the county’s population increased by 43,518, totaling 120,413 by 1970. See Figure 14. The increase was over 50 % more than the increase in Manatee County, which had a 1970 population of 97,115 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2000). Although the 1969 Plan was not adopted and was not even a product of the community at large, it nevertheless appeared to reflect certain community concerns which had grown during the 1960’s. At this point, the County Commission chose to hire outside consultants from Tampa to produce a new plan. In addition to revising the plan, the county hired Dr. Earnest Bartley, a planning expert from the University of Florida to update their zoning ordinances and maps. A planner noted:

We were under tremendous amount of pressure from environmentalists that wanted the quality of life maintained in this county and so they wanted greater restrictions on growth and the type of growth. And of course you had the builders and developers who wanted to do what they wanted to do… opposed [planning]…

# # # # ### # ### ## # # # # ### # # # # # # ## ## ### # # # # ####### # # ## ###### # # # ##### 1900 - 1959 ###### # #### # # ####### ### ## ### ######## ### # ## #### ## # ### ########## ##### 1960 - 1969 # ###### ### # ##### # ## ## ########## ## ## ############### # ######### ### #### ###### ## # # 1 Dot = 50 # #### ### ######### # # # # ### ###### ## #### # ## # # # # ### ######### ## # # # ########### # ### ######## ###### Dwelling Units ## ### ### # ################ # #### # # ###### # #### ### #### # ######### ### # ### ## # # # ######### ### ### # ####### ### ############### ### ## ## # #### ######## ### # # # # # # ### ## ##### # ## # ## # # ##### ###### ## ## # # # # # # #### ## # # ## #### # # # ## # ####### # #### ### # ###### #### #### ## ######## # ## ### # # # ### ### ## # ### ### ################# ################# ########### # ##### #### # ##### # ##### # # ## # # # # # # ## ## # ## #### # # ## # ## ## # # ## # # ### ### # # ## ### ######### # # ### ## ## # # # # #### ## ## ## # ## # ###### ###### ###### # ## ## #### # ### # # ### #### ## ######## ##### ######### ## # # # ### ### ###### # ## ## # # # # # # # # ##### # ## # # ###### ## ## # # # # ## # # # #### # # # # # # ## ## # # 02468Miles # ### # ### # # ### # # ## # # ## # ### #

Figure 14: Sarasota Residential Development - 1970 (Sarasota County 1999)

but there was a stronger push by environmentalists and the remainder of the community (Interview 4)

1971 General Plan

A new General Plan was developed and adopted in 1971. It was developed within the context of a planning ideology that represented planning as an objective and rational means to address urban problems. The 1971 Plan states:

Until recently, the true potential of utilizing official public policy positions as instruments for guiding urban development has not been realized. … A system of public policies closely keyed to the general plan can be an extremely effective technique for guiding urban expansion. … Formulation of realistic, attainable development objectives is one of the most important steps in the planning process. They form the basic ground rules for plan preparation and policy adoption. Without clearly stated objectives, the plan cannot be effective because public actions are uncoordinated and directionless. Objectives are targets established to realize the values and aspirations of the community as a whole. Equally important as the need for clearly stating attainable development objectives is the need to establish them in a reasoned manner. Rather than being arbitrary or utopian statements, the objectives should reflect fundamental community needs, values and goals. That is, the underlying intent of the objectives must relate the general statements to their potential benefits and effects and future urban expansion. The intent constitutes a justification of public development policy at the highest community level (Sarasota County 1971, unnumbered pages).

The 1971 Plan clearly explained planning concepts, which are still in use today. These concepts include compact development, mixed uses, distinct community and neighborhood development, and self-sufficient new communities, provision of efficient facilities and services and protection of natural resources. The ideas regarding urban sprawl have not changed appreciably. The Plan stated:

If monotonous urban sprawl is to be avoided and a high quality living environment is to be achieved, it is important to have residential areas with distinct boundaries and clear identities. This cannot be done if housing areas are developed by the process of platting a single-family subdivision next to another just like it - and so on in a continuous progression of sameness. This approach to residential planning brings about monotony, lack of functional open space, inefficient traffic circulation patterns, and an absence of true neighborhood or community identity (Sarasota County 1971, unnumbered pages).

The major objectives included:

promote the general public interest, rather than special interest groups, (the planning/political process enables the plan to clearly state the publicly derived growth decisions); coordinate political and technical processes to bring about desired community development; provide a better setting for all human activities; make the community more beautiful, decent, healthy, stimulating and efficient; improve the physical and social environment of the community; channel expected growth into desirable patterns; establish stable land use relationships; establish functional land use groupings; restriction of commercial/industrial intrusion into residential areas; provision of a full range of facilities and services; and minimize congestion and travel time-distance (Sarasota County 1971, unnumbered pages).

Similar to the 1969 Plan, many of the objectives continued to be very general and subjective, with multiple possible interpretations. With regard to urban containment, the objectives were more specific. The following objectives, intent statements, development policies, and implementation strategies are provided in detail to illustrate the discursive reasoning behind the urban containment idea:

Objective: To further the general goal of compact urban development by containing most urban growth west of the alignment of proposed Interstate 75.

Intent: The intent of using I-75 as an eastern boundary of urban development is to maximize the amenities of a coastal environment while containing the urbanized area within a district which reduces the disparity between County revenues and service cost. Also, the use of I-75 as a growth barrier will help reduce urban sprawl and channel further growth in a more cohesive linear form. A linear form will reduce the costs of providing utility systems and major transportation arteries. Scattered "leap-frog" development east of I-75 would, on the other hand, increase the cost of providing urban services, create a formless urban pattern, and reduce the quality and effectiveness of the future transportation system. Because of these numerous concerns, acceptable land development proposals east of I-75 should take the form of self-sufficient new communities. (Italics added)

Implementation Strategies: Guide urban growth by providing water and sewer systems in prime areas and withholding these facilities from areas in which growth is to be discouraged. Discourage development east of I-75 by not constructing any major thoroughfare facilities and reducing the ease of access to the area.

New communities were recommended as having a minimum size of 2,500 acres, consisting of four neighborhoods of 12,000 people each, a primary commercial center, meaningful open space and all necessary urban services and facilities. They must be self sufficient that is able to "stand alone and not be totally dependent upon the facilities of Sarasota County or a nearby municipality."

Objective: To create three primary urban concentrations around Sarasota, Venice and Englewood separated by suburban and semi-urban areas.

Intent: …development of three distinct urban centers separated by suburban and "open development" areas will prohibit the evolution of monotonous "linear sprawl."

Implementation strategy: Restrict expansion of utilities and major streets outside of planned urban areas.

Objective: To encourage an urban form which will permit provision of high quality urban services at the most efficient cost-revenue relationship.

Intent: The compact urban form characterized by the urban corridor actually reduces the total urban area which must receive facilities and services. Secondly, the more intensive use of land within the confined urban areas increases the public revenue per acre. Compactness further increases the efficiency with which utility systems operate and increases the probability that all urban uses will be served by public utilities, thereby reducing pollution and public health hazards. By reducing the total urban service area and increasing the efficiency of governmental service operations, the unit cost of these services can be lowered."

Objective: To provide all areas developed at urban densities with a full range of efficient urban services and facilities.

Implementation strategy: Require provision of water and sewer systems in all new residential development at a density of more than one housing unit per acre.

Objective: To encourage the highest overall densities in the central cores of the primary urban centers.

Objective: To stimulate development of suburban areas in a neighborhood and community structure while seeking a low overall development density with a wide variety of housing types and platting techniques. (Italics added)

Intent: This objective is designed to encourage development of low-density suburban areas in clearly defined neighborhood and community units with each having district identities. By following this approach to suburban development, it will be possible to avoid the monotony of large areas of nondescript urban sprawl.

Objective: To provide for "semi-urban" districts which will permit development at very low densities while preserving an open character of the area.

Semi-urban was defined as:

an area containing very low density development, primarily residential, in order to provide an open character without withholding all land development activities [and] can be best visualized as an "estate zone", containing minimum lot sizes of two acres. … The major purpose of the semi-urban district is to permit reasonable land development practices while maintaining a "green area" within the urbanized portion of Sarasota County. It is a method of establishing a green wedge to shape the urban form and contain urban development within compact boundaries easily served by urban services and facilities. …. Density levels generally should be restricted to one-half dwelling unit per gross acre, but higher densities (not to exceed seven units per acre) can be allowed by special approval of the County Commission and Planning Commission (Sarasota County 1971, unnumbered pages).

The 1971 Plan explicitly recognized “the major elements operating in the county to shape the form of urban development.” These were natural physical features (shorelines, topography), existing land use districts (concentrations of residential, commercial, etc. as well as open lands), transportation systems (roads), and utility systems (water and sewer). These material objects and their spatial aspects were considered important to the shaping of future urban form. In an apparent denial of these factors, the existence of residential development and an extensive road network east of I-75 (due east of the City of Sarasota) was insufficient to warrant an urban land use designation. Further, the 1971 Plan, although keeping the I-75 Corridor containment concept, expanded the urban designations west of I-75 and south of the City of Sarasota – encompassing 1,000’s of acres of open undeveloped lands, for the expressed purposed of containing urban development in a linear form. The following points can be drawn from the above objectives: 1. Urban sprawl was identified as a major issue for Sarasota County; 2. Urban containment was the primary means for controlling sprawl; 3. Low density development west of the proposed I-75 boundary and in a north-south corridor along the coast was allowed by the Plan; 4. The provision of pubic facilities and services was an important consideration and it was believed that providing such facilities and services to the north-south corridor inside the containment line would be efficient due to the compact form and higher densities of the developed area. However, the full-range of facilities and services were targeted for areas of urban density, instead of the entire area to be developed; and

5. Development east of the containment line was not prohibited and it was envisioned that "self-sufficient" new communities could be developed. The 1971 Plan contained strong statements against urban sprawl and more specific measures for directing urban growth. However, an analysis of the plan reveals that urban sprawl was not discouraged or limited. Objectives and policies targeting compact growth around the three urban centers of Sarasota, Venice and Englewood were ineffective when all of the intervening lands were allowed to develop as well. Objectives and polices promoting "low density" development between urban concentrations were ineffective because low density was defined as one unit per acre. This is an urban density that required a full range of urban facilities and services while consuming more land per person than higher densities. Further, higher densities of up to seven units per acre were allowed which undermined the plan to promote higher densities in the three urban centers. Attempts to guide urban growth by restricting pubic water and sewer systems resulted in development at lower densities to escape the requirement to have centralized services while still consuming land or scattered development served by private utilities. Finally, development east of the I-75 containment line was allowed. Restrictions on density, and public facilities and services did not prohibit development at lower densities without centralized services or well planned road networks. Additionally, previously platted lands and existing zoning throughout the county allowed a continuation of development inconsistent with the patterns envisioned by the Plan. The new zoning code reduced the number of areas with commercial and multi-family zoning. Densities were reduced in m many areas, particularly on Siesta Key. The highest density allowed after the revisions was 13 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance was developed which "encouraged large, big-time development" because of the added development flexibility (Interview 4). Arguably, the reduction of densities was counter to the concept of compact growth and the discouragement of urban sprawl. However, high density development on Siesta Key, a barrier island, was perceived as a threat to the overall quality of life, which was in turn linked to a low-density lifestyle. During the early 1970’s, development continued at a rapid pace including a number of large projects defined by State Statute as Developments of Regional Impact. These were considered to be so large as to have impacts extending beyond the counties boundaries and required regional and state oversight. Four large residential developments were approved

totaling approximately 14,000 dwelling units. These large developments were initiated by large firms some of which were linked to global corporations, such as Taylor Woodrow Homes Limited (Community Affairs 2001). In sum, the 1971 Plan was proclaimed by the county as an anti-sprawl plan. Urban sprawl issues had been thoroughly described. Yet the plan, despite rhetoric to the contrary, allowed and even encouraged urban sprawl.

Land Use and Infrastructure

Sarasota planners recognized the relationship between land use and infrastructure. Planning for water and sanitary sewer systems had been occurring concurrently with the land planning efforts. In 1971, there were 131 separate water systems operating in Sarasota County. It was a haphazard and uncoordinated collection of systems providing varying quality of levels. There were also a large number of private wells. The Report on the Engineering and Economic Feasibility of Water and Sanitary Sewerage Systems for the County of Sarasota completed in 1967; Engineering and Cost Analysis of Water and Wastewater Systems completed in 1970; and the Water and Wastewater Systems Master Plan for Sarasota County completed in 1971 recommended the consolidation and centralization of services. The first water utility district, Special Utility District Number 1, was set up in the north county, west of the I-75 growth boundaries and within the urban containment line in 1973. Overall however, county action to implement these plans was extremely limited and did little to counter the haphazard private sector construction of water and sewer systems to serve new development scattered throughout the county (Sarasota County Planning Department 1986; Fishkind and Milliman 1978). The county recognized that continued growth would require additional potable water supplies and was offered the opportunity to join Manatee County in the development of the Evers Reservoir as a source for future potable water. But they declined, choosing instead to find independent sources of water for the growing population. They did however; enter into a 40- year agreement with Manatee County to purchase water. Sarasota County officials thought that they would surely have the water supply problem solved by 2001. As it turns out, they continue to have a water supply problem. At the regional level, the Southwest Florida Water Management District began water use permitting in 1972, but it was more of an accounting tool than a regulatory device (Fernald and

Purdum 1998). Thus, without strong state action at either the county or regional level, water utilities were allowed to support the haphazard land development pattern that was occurring. Wastewater treatment in Sarasota County was poor prior to the 1970’s leading to water quality problems in Sarasota Bay. Surface water quality decline caused by inadequate wastewater treatment was a national problem and the federal government enacted legislation to help local governments plan and pay for wastewater infrastructure. Water and wastewater infrastructure was recognized as a necessary component for a good quality of life, but was also recognized as a growth facilitator. County government resisted attempts to centralize their water and wastewater systems and do the type of long-term facility planning and construction that would foster more ordered growth. Part of this reluctance was based on rules of legitimation that supported a limited role for government. The private sector was left to provide this service.

Extra-Local Actions

During the early 1970's, the environmental movement was growing stronger throughout the United States. A number of federal laws were enacted that supported planning and growth management. These included the Coastal Zone Management Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Air Act, and Noise Control Act. At the State level, a severe drought in 1971 exposed Florida's dependence on its fragile environmental base and commanded the attention of state policy makers and Governor Ruben Askew in particular. The "growth is good" ideology was no longer an unquestioned given.

Clearly, the old uncritical love affair with growth was over … Florida had been wrenched from the old "Growth is good no matter what" approach into a new, uneasy, uncertain, but still powerful challenge to the necessary goodness of growth (DeGrove 1984: 108).

This led to the passage in 1972 of the Environmental Land and Water Management Act (Chapter 380), Land Conservation Act (Chapter 250), Water Resources Act (Chapter 373), and State Comprehensive Planning Act (Chapter 23). These laws represented a major change in how the State of Florida was going to address growth. Also of importance was the establishment of what was to be the first of three Environmental Land Management Study (ELMS) Committees which would eventually result in an expansive rewrite of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which addressed local government comprehensive planning (DeGrove 1984).

1975 Plan

Sarasota County continued to engage in land use planning and in March 1975 a new Plan was adopted, prior to new landmark state legislation adopted later the same year. On a conceptual level, county planners drew upon the broader social milieu (time-space distanciation) with the following quote placed in the forward of the 1975 Land Use Plan.

Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase. This is as true of humans in the finite space of a planetary ecosystem as it is of gas molecules in a sealed flask. The human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive” (Frank Herbert, Dune. New York, Ace Books, Inc. 1965, p.505 in Sarasota County Planning Department 1975, i.).

In developing the 1975 Plan, county planners analyzed how many dwelling units and people could be accommodated by the existing zoning and land use plan in the unincorporated areas. Existing zoning at the time would allow a theoretical maximum of 585,699 people, or 451,940 more people than currently resided in the county. In other words, zoning in 1974 would allow more people than currently exist in the county in 2001! The proposed land use plan would allow a theoretical maximum of 830,653 people (Sarasota County 1974)! The 1975 Sarasota County Land Use Plan methodically considered the advantages and disadvantages of different planning approaches. Urban sprawl considerations were of primary concern. It was recognized that no planning, i.e., a failure to plan, would likely result in sprawl as would other options, including growth based on environmental limitations because of the extensive and scattered pattern of environmentally sensitive lands. Ultimately, the county combined "community desires with sound planning philosophy" to pursue a combination of planning options (Sarasota County Planning Department 1975: 9). Compact development was chosen as the basic framework in combination with general low density and environmental limitations. At this time, this combination was viewed as an appropriate compromise and any apparent conflicts between these concepts were discounted.

The general intent of this combination is to produce geographically compact, low density urbanizations permitting as much open space and the least environmental manipulations practicably possible and yet be able to provide the best quality community services at reasonable cost to the taxpayer and to minimize wasted human energy in general (Sarasota County Planning Department 1975: 9).

A first step in the Plan was to establish urban boundaries. The criteria for locating the boundaries and the definitions established for urban and rural foiled the goal of compact development in favor of low density development. First, the urban/rural boundary was based on the extensive land area where speculative platting had taken place in earlier decades rather than criteria which would direct a compact development pattern. The measuring unit for urban was the north or south half of a Section. (Florida utilizes a section-township-range survey) A half section would be a rectangle of 320 acres. Any half section with approved plats and/or site plans for more than 320 dwelling units was deemed urban. Some of these platted areas were quite speculative in nature, yet they and the remaining undeveloped portions of the half section where they were located received the county’s endorsement to build out. The reason for the inclusion of areas that were platted or having site plans was probably based on the legal, political and practical realities. First, there were those that would make the somewhat spurious argument that once an area was platted, it would have legally vested rights to develop based on the plat, regardless of what a subsequently adopted plan required. Second, even if vested rights did not exist, there was an argument that it would simply be unfair to the landowner/developer to rescind a prior governmental approval to go forward with development. In other words, even though a vesting argument may fail in court, it may easily pass before the county commission. This was a rule of legitimation, i.e. you can’t take back what you’ve given away and there was some belief that failure to restrict speculative actions was equivalent to the sanctioning of those actions, thus granting property rights. Second, urban was defined as an area of residential density of more than one dwelling unit per acre. However, densities of one unit per acre up to three units per acre are generally considered low-density urban sprawl. Thus, the urban containment area allowed low-density urban sprawl. Third, residential densities ranging from one unit per two to five acres have been shown to be prime examples of urban sprawl (Nelson and Duncan 1995). Thus, densities just short of the one unit per acre threshold were allowed in designated “rural” areas beyond the urban boundary, which essentially authorized urban sprawl beyond the urban containment area. Additionally, the county designated half sections as "potentially urban" when they were simply zoned to meet the above criteria. The designation of an area as potentially urban was an

enabling pre-condition for conversion to urban use in the future. Through these criteria, some areas east of I-75 were declared potentially urban, breaching the I-75 containment boundary in 1975.

Finally, the plan included this recommendation:

It is recommended that no new urban development be approved beyond the current limits of any Urban Area or Potentially Urban area until the gross residential density of that existing Urban Area reaches two dwelling units per gross acre. … The intent of this recommendation is to prevent "leapfrogging," and uncontrolled urban sprawl but without creating an undesirably high density urban environment. It is not intended to encourage development within the Urban Areas, but to discourage it elsewhere. Neither is it necessary to have as many as two dwelling units per gross acre within the urban area except for the purposes of this policy (Sarasota County Planning Department 1975: 11).

The belief that the plan would contain urban growth was seemingly misplaced because the containment area was so large as to not restrict growth (apparently an unintended and unacknowledged outcome). The emphasis on low density urban development apparently was consistent with a desirable "use value." However, given that the real estate market was predominantly a low-density market, the Plan also affirmed the “exchange value” of low-density suburbia. Use values and exchange values had the common element of low-density consistent with an urban sprawl development pattern.

The representation of space provided by the 1975 Plan apparently satisfied both capital and civil society. The Plan summarized this indirectly by stating:

The plan is based not upon the land necessary to support a projected population but rather upon the necessities of a planned spatial growth considered appropriate to maintain the quality of life in Sarasota County (Sarasota County Planning Department 1975:2).

With regard to rural densities, the Plan anticipated the development of estate or ranchette style housing and provided for this with a maximum allowed density of one dwelling unit per acre. Rural density was designated for large areas of the county in a band extending one to two miles from the designated urban area. The rural density designation was even more extensive in an area east of the City of Sarasota, and east of the urban containment line in response to the platting, zoning, roads, and residential development that had already occurred in this area. This formally sanctioned development in a bulge beyond I-75. In other words, despite the rhetoric of the 1969 and 1971 plans, actual development as well as precursor actions to development had

been occurring east of the containment line. This new “rural” designation enabled and sanctioned the further development past the urban containment line. Figure 15 is the Future Land Use Map for the 1975 Plan. Beyond the rural residential area, land was designated mostly for agriculture or conservation. Five to ten acre lots were allowed. This was not considered to be an urban sprawl issue: Some people contend that [5-10 acre lot sizes/subdivisions] are urban sprawl … It's a market, they're people that want to live that way, its not like development here [in the urban area] where we are going to provide roads and sewer and water and parks. They want their ten acres. (Interview 4)

The 1975 Plan continued to include other concepts and policies from earlier plans, such as: the plan should be conceptual in nature, able to change as social and economic patterns evolve; provide public facilities and services to planned urban areas; encourage four distinct urban areas around Sarasota, Venice, Englewood, and North Port (North Port is a new addition); protect environmental resources; and protect agricultural lands. Transportation (road) planning was not yet well integrated with land use planning. However, the Sarasota County Thoroughfare Plan, adopted at the same time as the Land Use Plan, supported the land use designations with planned roads. This included some roads east of the containment line (Sarasota County Planning Department 1975). In 1975, while Sarasota County was revising its plan, the State Legislature enacted the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act that mandated comprehensive planning statewide. For the first time, minimum planning requirements were established. Key requirements included: principles, guidelines, and standards for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area; consistency among plan elements, including land use, infrastructure, housing and intergovernmental coordination; economic feasibility; capital improvement planning to ensure availability of public facilities and services; intergovernmental coordination; and public participation in developing the plan. Importantly, the comprehensive plan would no longer be an advisory, generalized goal setting document, but would be the legal instrument that controlled land use. The Act stated that "no public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with comprehensive plans … adopted in conformity with this act" (Brown 1994: 1-24).

Figure 15: Sarasota Future Land Use Map – 1975 (Sarasota County Planning Department 1975)

The new State requirements raised the stakes for planning. Comprehensive plans would be taken more seriously because of their binding effect on what development would be allowed. As Sarasota County began to revise its comprehensive plan to address the new requirements an influential organization called "Save Our Bays" was formed to address surface water pollution. However their goal was much broader, stating,

We believe there must be a limit to the extent and rate of growth in the unincorporated area of Sarasota County in order to preserve the health, safety, economic resources, environmental values and general welfare of the public" (Quote from Memorandum to the Sarasota County Commission, August 1, 1978 as reported in Fishkind and Milliman 1978).

Growth proponents included the Contractors Association of Sarasota, Manatee, Hardee, and Desoto counties. The county commission and planning department were in the middle of the debate. The bulk of civil society did not participate directly in the debate but made their desires known via their choices for type, density, and location of their residences as well as shopping preferences. Likewise, the bulk of civil society and capital interests made their desires known via their choices for residential and business location. In large measure, the defining issues were not particularly unique to Sarasota County. "The growth management debate in Sarasota County reflects many of the issues, tensions, and actors present across Florida and the nation" (Fishkind and Milliman 1978, 5). Both sides pressed their positions and invoked competing ideologies of the need for a growing local economy and maintenance of the quality of life. Capital interests argued the following:

"Planned sensible growth is a necessity in a complex society" however growth management should be limited in addressing identified market imperfections

"A sham battle or false issues on questions of growth management are often raised at the level of pure rhetoric"

"good intentions are not enough" (Fishkind and Milliman 1978, 4, 23, 38)

This dialogue appears to uncover the positionality of the planners, and local state more generally, with regards to the regulation of development. Since the late 1960’s, county plans have professed a conviction that a professional, scientific approach is necessary to create good plans and ultimately good communities. That is, planners know best. A critical reading of the

text leads to the questions as to whether the authors of the plans are in fact pursuing other political agendas that are masked by the technical jargon of the planning profession. Yet, Fishkind and Milliman make similar scientific claims and their econometric analysis is certainly inaccessible to many. In Sarasota County, there are some indications that these other agendas are not a simple support for capital accumulation, but a more complex balancing of issues, including an attempt at state legitimation. The issue of density continued to be important to the debate. The Sarasota County plans emphasized low density as an apparently necessary element for a good quality of life. However, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council projected development patterns based on average densities of 1.5 dwelling units per acre up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. Under these projections, the development pattern is much more compact (Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1978). Therefore the answer to the question of what constituted a desirable low-density pattern was not clear. By the late 1970’s, the Sarasota County officials became more introspective as they considered the failures and contradictions in the earlier plans. Additionally, the officials voiced a growing obsession with the complexity, legalities, past deficiencies and the need to correct those deficiencies, do better planning and to do a “state of the art” plan. County documents reflected the influence of both anti-growth and pro-growth interests. Planning at the end of the 1970’s reflected these attitudes in the following ways. First, planners went to great length to explore the meaning of the term “growth management,” which was a fairly new term at the time. It was important to the planners that they define what it was that they were doing. They sought to define, explore and ultimately defend growth management. Second, planners were very concerned about unanalyzed and unintended outcomes of their plans. They expressed a need for sound legal and economic analysis by professionals. Third, regardless of the particular planning techniques, planners were convinced that plans must accommodate projected population rather than find ways to restrict population growth. This position was based in large measure on legal challenges to restrictive growth plans from around the country. Fourth, planners examined various growth management techniques such as population caps in Boca Raton, residential quotas in Petaluma, California and urban service boundaries in Salem, Oregon. Many of these techniques were examined because of their prospect for preventing scattered development and urban sprawl. Other planning techniques considered were transfer of

development rights (TDRs), public land banking, and agricultural districting. A fair-share approach incorporating staged development, as used in Ramapo, New York was recommended. This approach “integrates comprehensive planning and capital improvement programming in order to determine where development should occur and when it should occur based upon the local government’s fiscal ability to provide needed services” (Sarasota County Planning Department 1979: 21). Extra-local structures, systems, and agents continued to influence the Sarasota County locale. Water planning and implementation of centralized and coordinated water infrastructure to support a compact urban development pattern was not occurring. Sarasota County, as part of the Manasota Basin Board joined the Southwest Florida Water Management District in 1977, which then proceeded to study the problem further. By 1979, there were 164 separate water systems and thousands of private wells. The county was falling behind in its attempts to provide regional systems. However, there were now five public water authorities. Three were controlled by the cities of Sarasota, Longboat Key and Venice. The Englewood Water District had been added to the original Special Utilities District Number 1. Of all the independent and franchise utilities, all were west of I-75 with the significant exception of the Southeastern Development and Utilities Corporation which purchased water wholesale from the Special Utilities District Number 1. This was located in the rural use "bulge", east of I-75. In 1979, the Southeastern Development and Utilities Corporation served 2,125 persons. Thus, both the 1975 Land Use Plan and the planned provision of water facilities supported development east of I-75. At the same time, the provision of water facilities within the urban containment area was haphazard and uncoordinated. This supported a scattered land use pattern, i.e. urban sprawl. In 1977, Sarasota County increased its wastewater planning efforts by approving the 201 Plan, which could be used to acquire federal funding assistance. This plan was strongly supported by the Sarasota County Chamber of Commerce (Smally, Wellford & Nalven and Russell & Axon 1977-a). At this time, there were existing wastewater treatment plants in the cities of Sarasota, Venice and North Port. The 201 Plan proposed new plants near Palmer Ranch at the intersection of Clark and Beneva Roads and just north of the City of Venice, north of Border Road and west of I-75. These plants were planned to serve existing and expected growth in these areas based on the 1975 Sarasota County Land Use Plan and its designation of urban and potentially urban areas. Potentially urban areas included lands east of I-75, south of Bee Ridge

Road and west of the Bee Ridge Road Extension, the bulge (Smally, Wellford & Nalven and Russell & Axon 1977-b). Thus, wastewater planning supported development east of I-75 while failing to encourage growth within the urban containment area. The lack of coordination between land use and water/wastewater infrastructure planning was well known, as were the likely outcomes. Health impacts of septic tanks had been identified and in 1979, the State of Florida established a limit on the number of septic tanks per acre. For developments on public water systems the limit was four septic tanks per acre. The purpose of the State regulation was to protect against health impacts and was not intended to affect land use patterns. However, the unintended consequence was to allow up to four dwelling units per acre without centralized wastewater systems in place. This allowed for a lower initial capital costs associated with development because developers only had to provide centralized water, not centralized sewer, as long as the density was less than four dwelling units per acre. Two dwelling units per acre were allowed without central water. It allowed for greater geographic flexibility as to where the development might occur since low density development location was not bound to the location of centralized water and sewer facilities. Similarly, many small "package plants" that provided wastewater were built, often in areas where centralized water/septic tank option was not available. This allowed "development in parcels not contiguous to existing urban areas -- in other words, allows leapfrog development" (Sarasota County Planning Department 1986:189). The development industry reported the following:

There is reason to suspect, for example, that the county has been reluctant in the past to embark upon large-scale water and wastewater systems because of fears that such programs may have a tendency to encourage growth. However it is reasonable to argue that properly planned and properly financed public facilities, coupled with land use controls, could be a major factor in controlling the quality and consequences of growth. [underlining in original] There is some evidence to support the view that failure to provide some important public facilities may not have curbed growth very much (if at all) and may have led instead to growth patterns which have created severe environmental and fiscal problems. … Because central systems are not available, the location and spatial patterns of new developments are difficult to control. It may be ironic, therefore, that fears of growth and its consequences may have resulted in policies which have served to cause some of the fears to be realized. (Fishkind and Milliman 1978, 48) A solution to the county's pressing water supply problems and sewage treatment needs has remained elusive and road congestion has not been dealt with effectively (Fishkind and Milliman 1978, 2). We suggest that the major

objections to the plan may lie in the fact that it appears to be very expensive (Fishkind and Milliman 1978, 92). … a growth management policy can produce unexpected and unwanted consequences [this report focused on employment opportunities, higher taxes] … exclusionary zoning policies can lead to fiscal imbalances and spillover effects on adjacent jurisdictions. …large lot zoning is a popular method of growth control….it may lead to urban sprawl, increased commuting, and a reduction in open space (Fishkind and Milliman 1978, 221- 222).

Early 1980s During the 1970’s, the county’s population increased by 81,838 totaling 202,251 by 1980. The increase was almost 60 % more than the increase in Manatee County, which had a 1980 population of 148,445 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2000). By 1980, urban sprawl was a widely recognized phenomenon not constrained and possibly enabled by inadequate planning. Growth management was viewed as a solution that would be supported by the courts. Legal systems included the Florida Constitution, Article VIII and statutory authority under Chapters 125.60 and 163, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. Additionally, the county had adopted a Charter in November 1976 and the Sarasota County Planning and Zoning Ordinance, Number 76-51.

There is ample constitutional and statutory authority for a home-rule charter county in Florida to enact a growth management ordinance for the purpose of controlling the timing, phasing and amount of development within the unincorporated areas of the county. …[The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act in 1975] indicates a broad delegation of power to Florida governmental units to provide for orderly, efficient, planned growth. The Act may, in fact, be interpreted as a state mandate for growth control measures where urban sprawl and inadequate public facilities threaten a growing Florida community. … These statutory provisions, and a sympathetic judiciary, have combined in a movement to protect, preserve and enhance the land, the environment, and the ecology of the state. This movement reflects a shift away from the enforcement of private property rights of land ownership, and a shift toward the recognition of the public right to the preservation and enjoyment of the land in its natural state (Freilich & Leitner, P.C. 1982: 17).

Comprehensive planning which coordinates land use planning and capital facilities programming was viewed as a legally supportable method to control sprawl. Other communities around the United States, including Ramapo, New York and Petaluma, California had shown the way. However, planning could not stop growth, as explained by a consultant to Sarasota County,

a community may utilize growth control measures which plan for the future, but may not use such measures to prevent newcomers from settling in a community. The avoidance of economic and social burdens is not a legitimate governmental objective (Freilich & Leitner, P.C. 1982: 14).

Comprehensive plans from 1980 through 1986 were explicitly based on the following statements reflective of the underlying planning and overall community ideologies: Planning is necessary because rapid, unmanaged growth negatively impacts environmental and agricultural resources and the quality of life.

Planning reflects the "desires and will of the people and the best judgments of a professional team (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980: xvii).

Planning can be effective in achieving the established goals and Sarasota County planning is "state of the art."

Planning must ensure "that the functions of a free market economy are maintained and enhanced."

The need for urban, agricultural and natural resource areas must be balanced.

A balance is needed between environmental, economic, political and property rights concerns.

Government regulatory actions impact the local economy.

The local government can work with the private sector to achieve its goals.

Property rights are a paramount concern (addressed by Ordinance 81-30) (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980 and 1986).

The plans during this period reflected an obsession with the idea of planning and the prospects that increasingly sophisticated planning will accommodate growth and preserve Sarasota County's quality of life. (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980, 1986; Sarasota Committee of One Hundred 1987) The plan itself was now entitled: Apoxsee: Sarasota County's Comprehensive Framework for the Future The term “Apoxsee” is the Seminole Indian word for "tomorrow" (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980). The new title reflected a pride in planning and attempted to distinguish the Sarasota County plan from other plans. The new plan, Apoxsee, was awarded an American Planning Association Outstanding Planning Program Award (Wilkinson 2001).

The Plan continued to focus on problems thought to occur when land use is unplanned and growth is unmanaged. Planners were critical of the 1975 Plan for lacking “objective criteria to determine the timing, direction, and intensity of future growth” (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980, 348). The planners realized that the earlier Plan's attempt to develop a geographically compact urban area and low density development was flawed. Planners realized that while both concepts had attractive attributes, they were mutually exclusive and it was impossible to steer a clear course of action. The 1980 Plan stated that the low density policy "has resulted in the increased dispersal of urbanization at the cost of the "compact" component of the urban containment concept” (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980: 349). Moreover, uncontrolled low density was inconsistent with efficient use of energy and provision of services and resulted in a loss of sense of community. The identified, necessary solution was to encourage higher density development. This would also have the benefit of protecting agricultural lands from irreversible conversion to other land uses (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980, 343-351). Specific concerns that were expressed include the following:

from 1967 to 1980, the average residential density in the urban areas decreased by about 30%; large tracts of land outside the urban area have been consumed by lower-density, i.e. rural residential development; from 1975-1980, the average density for new preliminary subdivision plats and condominium plans throughout unincorporated Sarasota County is an extremely low 1.27 du/ac; and attempts to implement the 1975 Plan to concentrate commercial districts failed because strip commercial was vested to protect property rights (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980: 348-352).

Although critical of the earlier plans, the major objectives were quite similar, including the provision of adequate land for the projected population while protecting environmentally sensitive lands and agriculture, ensuring energy efficient development and encouraging the provision of adequate public facilities. While county officials were criticizing the shortcomings of the 1970’s plans, they were explicitly constrained by the development landscapes that those earlier plans had allowed and promoted. The 1980 Apoxsee was based on recognition of "already established land use patterns" (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980, xxi). The Plan identified existing urban development outside of the current urban area that was vested and therefore should be allowed to infill (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980,

359). In this case, infill does not refer to the isolated vacant lot, possibly the result of the actual deconstruction of obsolete buildings located deep within the urban core. Rather, this is a circumstance where a scattering of development (existing buildings as well as claimed property rights to develop based on subdivision plats and multiple ownership patterns) extending out from the urban fringe gives rise to further speculative activity and an expectation that the intervening lands should have the right to develop. At some point in the scattered, haphazard development of rural lands, subsequent development acquires the positive euphemism of infill, rather than sprawl. As infill, this subsequent development is believed to mitigate the problems of the scattered development pattern and thus create a more desirable landscape. However, the criteria for judging this possibility and the evidence sustaining the argument are political rather than based on any recognized planning practice. The idea of growth accommodation continued to strengthen and was now linked, not just to legalities and property rights but to the larger concern of the local economy.

To attain a healthy economy characterized by low unemployment and diversity— one that meets the needs of the people—requires government to allocate sufficient amounts of land in proper proportions for all required economic activities (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980, 235).

The comprehensive plans in the early to mid 1980’s continued the appearance of an urban containment policy. The Sarasota County comprehensive plan had the goal to discourage sprawl by providing sufficient and logical areas to meet urban needs. Part of this goal was to achieve an overall urban density of three dwelling units per acre (Sarasota County Planning Department 1986). Arguably, this was a low-density sprawl development. Moreover, since the goal was to achieve this as an average density, much development would occur at an even lower density. The Plan states that "urban development should be permitted only to the west and/or south of the proposed alignment of Interstate 75 in order to contain urban sprawl and minimize the cost and energy of providing community services" (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980 and 1986). The Plan also continued the policy of maintaining distinct urban communities. The plan stated, "By maintaining natural open space areas between urban centers, urban sprawl is discouraged, and each community can, in turn, determine its own individual character and community image" (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980: xxii, 1986). Despite the stated attempt to plan higher density and compact development, a further expansion of the urban area was recommended (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980,

354). Planners determined that although the 1975 Plan had over-designated lands for residential use, the 1975 Plan failed to accommodate the need in the northern part of the county while oversupplying the southern part of the county. The solution was to add additional urban lands in the north. The projected over allocation of urban land in the southern part of the county was allowed to remain. The amount of land designated for urban development countywide was about 36 % more than projected to be needed for the year 2000. One reason given for this additional designation of urban land was to counter the expansion of low density encroachment in the rural area. In other words, despite the containment boundary, planners recognized that urban uses were extending beyond the boundary. The solution was to extend the boundary, rather than redirect development within the line and more strongly restrict low density development beyond the containment line. The containment line was not used as a tool to control growth, but as a tool to allow growth. In order to minimize and mitigate the perceived negative impacts of this urban expansion into the previously semi-rural area, the Plan envisioned a development pattern called "Combination Mix." It was argued that this approach:

Promotes the use of cluster development in order to meet the urban containment policy, to create a feeling of openness, to reduce energy consumption and development costs, to preserve environmentally sensitive areas and natural drainage features, and to create a stronger community identity (Sarasota County Planning Department 1986: 355).

How the clustering of traditional low-density lots to provide for common open space could achieve such substantial and far reaching objectives was not explained. However, it was noted that this, almost magic, solution was drawn from a development industry publication - Cluster, Builders Magazine, 18th Annual Land Use Report, August 7, 1978. Within the urban area, the plan allowed higher density near the existing town centers which was gradually reduced in concentric bands extending from these centers. The largest was the town center and it included the central business districts of Sarasota, Venice, Englewood and North Port. An activity center concept was established to promote the formation of secondary centers in the lower intensity rings around the town centers. Community centers, village centers and neighborhood centers, varying in scale and theoretical service area, constituted the secondary centers. Essentially, this was an attempt in the Plan to avoid a haphazard or strip-linear

distribution of employment and retail uses. The Plan was attempting to plan for an urban pattern that reflected traditional central place theory. One means of achieving these concentric residential bands of sequentially reduced density was an urban area residential check list which established criteria to determine the allowed maximum density. Residential density bands were established based on factors such as proximity to schools, parks, transit as well as the previously mentioned activity centers. In theory, desirable urban densities, in the range of six dwelling units per acre, would be clustered near employment, retail and important public uses such as schools. This was viewed as an anti- sprawl regulation. However, when criteria were not met, much lower densities were mandated, even though development was within the urban containment zone (Sarasota County Planning Department 1981 and 1986). An unintended consequence was the discouragement of higher densities. The semi-rural areas, containing an astounding 28,000 acres, were allowed to develop at a density of one dwelling unit to two acres. This was a reduction from the rural residential density category in the 1975 Plan of one dwelling unit per acre. This change had little real effect, particularly since "clustering" was allowed to provide open space, which meant that the developed portion of the site could effectively be one unit per acre. Low densities in this range are considered problematic and an example of sprawl development. Outside of the urban containment zone, rural areas were allowed to develop at one dwelling unit per five acres. In later years, this was criticized as allowing a low density form of urban sprawl (Urban Land Institute 1999). As of 1986, the county had a partial “Water and Wastewater Master Plan” which was adopted in 1971 for Special Utility District No. 1, serving approximately 70,000 people. However, large areas of the county continued to be served by septic tanks and small, private facilities. The evaluation and planning of water facilities focused on the macro issue of supply to the county population as a whole, not on the distribution of water facilities. In other words, water infrastructure was not geographically targeted in ways that would constrain urban sprawl or facilitate a compact development pattern. This was reflected in the planning analysis as well as the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plans. The county was continuing to struggle with the more basic decision as to whether the county should be responsible for various

aspects of the water supply, including managing the raw water supply, treatment, transmission, and distribution. The plan was silent on how the distribution of water facilities would affect growth amounts or distribution. The only connection between land use and facilities was the policy that facilities be available to meet growth needs, thus facility development should be coordinated in time and place with growth, wherever that growth was occurring (Sarasota County Planning Department 1986).

Late 1980s

In 1985 and 1986 the State of Florida revised the law regarding local government planning. The Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and its implementing Rule, Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code established some significantly new legal requirements for local government planning. These included the following: minimum plan criteria; state agency review of plans; penalties for plans not in-compliance with state law; coordination of capital facilities planning and land use planning; public participation; required consistency with state and regional plans; and discouragement of urban sprawl. It would take time for local governments to revise their plans to meet the new requirements and for State agencies, particularly the State Land Planning Agency - the Department of Community of Affairs to prepare to evaluate over 450 local government plans. Between 1986 and 1988, many meetings, workshops and model plans were prepared. Until the first plans were prepared and reviewed pursuant to the new law, there was great uncertainty regarding what effect the new law would have. This uncertainty was heightened somewhat by the election of a new Republican governor, Bob Martinez, because the law had been developed under Democratic Party leadership. State and regional planning efforts were continuing. Both the State Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest Florida Regional Policy Plan included provisions for guiding land uses as well as protecting private property rights. The Regional Plan stated: Florida shall protect private property rights and recognize the existence of legitimate and often competing public and private interests in land use regulations and other government action.

By 1991, Ensure that land use regulations provide for reasonable uses of all property, consistent with their characteristics and constitutional law.

100

In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner (Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1987).

The Southwest Florida Regional Policy Plan established some very ambitious goals and policies for urban concentration, including:

By 2010, 95% of growth occurring since 1990 will have occurred in central business districts, areas designated as urban, or areas provided with adequate urban services, and will have reduced vacant unused urban lands and central business districts by 30% of 1990 levels.

The plans of all jurisdictions should promote balanced and planned development Comprehensive plans and land development regulations should: depict of maps the appropriate distribution of urban uses necessary for the balanced growth of the forecasted population; distribute uses in a manner that promotes compatibility, effectively utilizes state, regional and local public facilities, and reduces conflict between uses; ensure existing urban areas are protected from the adverse impacts of future growth; and ensure future growth is directed to lands most suitable through natural capacity, accessibility, previous preparation for urban purposes, and the provision of adequate public facilities

Land development plans and regulations should: be coordinated with support service plans; include support service plans, based on population projections including seasonal variations; restrict or prohibit development in areas with currently inadequate facilities and services; ensure or pursue urban land development in areas that will have the capacity to service the associated new population and commerce (Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1987, 16-3 and 17-4).

The policies of the Southwest Florida Regional Policy Plan reflected a blended planning/legal jargon. Comprehension required familiarity with terms that often had vague or variable meanings, depending on the context and application. For example: “areas designated as urban” had a variable meaning depending on what the local government defined to be urban; “areas provided with adequate urban services” depended on the definition of “adequate;.” “balanced and planned development” was vague and undefined; “promotes compatibility” was an undefined, subjective term; “ensure existing urban areas are protected from the adverse impacts of future growth” was open to multiple interpretations.

101

Leading up to the initial transmittal of the new Sarasota County Plan in 1988, the county continued to make minor adjustments to its Plan. Some of these changes related to the urban containment boundary, noting that I-75 was placed in service during the mid 1980s. In 1987, Ordinance 87-03 established criteria for the development of land adjacent to I-75. This included an examination of land uses that would benefit form the visual and physical access to the interstate while not serving as an impetus to urban development beyond urban areas (Sarasota County Planning Department 1987). A 1988 amendment increased the industrial acreage at Fruitville Road and I-75, east of I-75 (Sarasota County Planning Department 1988). As the county approached the revisions of its plan to address the requirements of the 1985/86 Growth Management Act, capital interests in the county pushed hard with the message that "growth is a reality" and must be accommodated. The urban containment line was represented as a "local policy matter" which was of no significant concern to outside business interests (PHH Fantus Corporation 1988A and 1988B). On the other hand, components of civil society, such as environmental groups and the League of Women Voters continued to support the urban/rural distinctions and policies that (they believed) discouraged urban sprawl, including the urban containment line (League of Women Voters 1999). The existing-land use analysis in 1988 showed that the northern part of the county was growing more quickly than the southern part, but there was still substantial undeveloped acreage in both the northern and southern portions of the county. About 40 % of the semi-rural area had either been developed or was developing. The majority of the developed semi-rural land was in the bulge east of I-75 and due east of the City of Sarasota. The urban designated areas had additional capacity for about 11,000 dwelling units in the north and 17,000 in the south. The semi-rural areas had additional capacity for about 7,500 dwelling units. The total capacity of the existing land use plan without any changes was about 35,500 dwelling units. This analysis was based on the historical trend of development at low densities. Most of the land planning concepts in the previous land use plans were continued in the 1988 update. However, due to the continuing development of land distant from the historical urban centers, the county re-evaluated some of its earlier policies, notably the distinct separation of four urban centers and the concept of intensity level bands radiating outward from these centers and other sub-activity centers. Instead, the new Land Use Plan recognized “the generally

102

low density urban lifestyle which has evolved in Sarasota County” (Sarasota County Planning Department 1988:427). This low-density development was not characterized as urban sprawl. The previous Apoxsee land use plans had designated areas for urban, semi-rural and rural land uses. The 1988 Land Use Plan continued this overall approach, but with “refinements.” Specifically, the urban area was subdivided into three zones: urban, urban enclave, and future urban. County planners recommended that the I-75 urban boundary be extended eastward, but the Board of County Commissioners rejected this proposal. Instead, the urban area was expanded to include additional areas between Sarasota and Venice, west of I-75 (Wilkison, 2001). However, development in the bulge area east of I-75 was promoted by designating that area as "urban enclave" with a density of 2 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Yet, the county continued to deny that the urban containment line had been breached by asserting that:

It is not intended that the Urban Enclave designation be the next step in the eastern encroachment of urbanization but that it represents the ultimate delineation of urban intensity uses in that area coincident with existing services and facilities (italics added) (Sarasota County Planning Department 1988, 428).

Policy 1.6.1 stated:

The primary function of the urban area, including the Urban Enclave, as designated on the “Future Land Use Plan Map” shall be to contain urban sprawl (Sarasota County Planning Department 1988, 442).

The future urban area was to target future urban lands to meet development needs through the year 2010. Semi-rural and rural land concepts remained intact. The concentric intensity bands surrounding activity centers were replaced by a different set of criteria that focused on substantive issues such as availability of facilities and services, land suitability (avoidance of wetlands and floodplains) and provision of affordable housing. This new system provided for the potential for higher densities throughout the urban area. See Figure 16. The expansion of development opportunities “sparked controversy with respect to the county’s growth management strategy … [and] satisfied neither development interests nor residents concerned with the protection of environmentally sensitive lands” (Urban Land Institute 1999, 9). Sarasota County continued to make slow progress regarding the consolidation of water and wastewater facilities. However, much of the urban area was still served by independent or

103

franchise systems or was served by individual water wells and septic systems. However, the new State planning law required a closer coordination of land use and infrastructure planning. This served as a catalyst for continued progress in consolidation and centralization of systems. Transportation planning also was required to be coordinated with land use planning. Although, because most of the more significant roadways were State roads, planning was influenced by state criteria as well as transportation planning by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which planned for Sarasota and Manatee counties jointly. In Sarasota County, most new roadways and roadway expansions were west of I-75. The county knew that I-75, in full service by the mid-1980s would exert growth pressures on land east of the Interstate. Because of this, the Plan included policies to discourage arterials to penetrate rural areas east of I-75 (Sarasota County Planning Department 1986). But more roads were being built in the intervening spaces between the historical urban centers and within the urban enclave area east of I-75. These roadways enabled further and more rapid development of these areas.

Sarasota County - 1990s

The 1990's saw an increasing awareness of the negative impacts of growth and the role of land use planning. An already active citizenry became more active. Planning was attacked for pleasing no one and promoting further urban sprawl. This was evidenced by the following statements:

Past development (and regulation) was very destructive to the environment. [It] was not a real estate boom, that was a sin against God” (Jon Thaxton, former Planning Commissioner and current County Commissioner, in Warren 1991-C).

The complexity of land use regulation benefits those with special knowledge and financial resources (Warren 1991-D).

Public officials are caught in the middle (Warren 1991-D).

Regulation must control the market to address all development externalities (said Rick Drummond, former county planner, in Warren 1991-C).

Incremental NEED planning is unpredictable (for developers) and guarantees sprawl (Sams 1993).

Regulation is confusing and bureaucratic (Foster 1994-C).

104

Figure 16: Sarasota Future Land Use Map - 1989 (Sarasota County Planning Department 1989)

105

In 1991, Sarasota County sponsored a Growth Management Conference to seek the opinions of national experts on how the county should plan for the long term. This effort on the part of the county was consistent with previous efforts to ensure that planning in Sarasota County was "state of the art." This particular conference included planning experts from Oregon, Colorado, Maryland and New Jersey as well as other communities in Florida. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners introduced the conference with the remark that

Long-range planning is truly a reflection of our community values and personal lifestyles and I think it should be. Yet, as a community, we're still very much in the process of planning those values and we look to forums such as this to more clearly define that direction and to keep the dialogue open. It comes to in some instances of what kind of community do we want and what kind of community do we want for our children and our grandchildren? They're simple questions, it would seem, but they have very complicated and different answers sometimes (Sarasota County 1991).

The following is a sampling of comments from the panel of experts:

It is not just your rapid rate of growth that is causing you the headaches that are being translated into anti-growth sentiment, it is your pattern, your model of development here. It is the policy favoring single-family development with densities in the neighborhood of 2-1/2 to 3 dwelling units per acre, the low level of multi-family you're permitting here, the effective absence of manufactured housing. Now, that is the choice that Sarasota County has made, but - and this may sound counter-intuitive - those choices are slowly choking your livability (remarks of John Kelly, Oregon in Sarasota County 1991: 6).

Growth does not pay for itself in fiscal dollar terms is our conclusion, as a generality in terms of tax rates. It does pay for itself in terms of social, in terms of opportunities, in terms of the next generation, in terms of improved facilities and opportunities and so forth, but in general it is not something that is a money- maker for the fisc. … You have to suppress the opportunity to develop in the areas that you want to preserve or it's just like squeezing a tube of toothpaste or jelly or something because all the forces in our society go to sprawl, most all of the economic forces that are going on (remarks of Richard Tustian, Lincoln Land Institute in Sarasota County 1991: 9).

Carving land up into five acres does not maintain the rural image that people wanted. It also created service problems both for sewerage and for transportation. We must think more creatively about clustering in rural places to preserve that sense of community and traditional place (remarks of Ingred Reed, New Jersey in Sarasota County 1991: 12).

106

This map [Sarasota County's Future Land Use Map] is a joke. If your think that that green is green, [referring to the area designated as rural] you're colorblind. That green is dark yellow as long as you have 5-acre zoning out there. That is the most costly kind of development that you can be providing. You are sitting on a time bomb! If you want to see all those little special districts that you're creating go bad, you just wait about ten years and all those homeowners out there are going to be saddled with all those costs of fixing all those roads and all those sewer systems and all those water systems and this County Commission is going to have them sitting in front of them saying, "Fix us” (remarks of Frank Gray, Colorado and Petaluma, California in Sarasota County 1991: 15).

property right was as sacred in the minds of the founding fathers as was life and liberty itself. … the basis of proper land use regulation or environmental regulation has to be tangible harm … not a majority preference. … the key thing you want to avoid is have a planning process or a land use regulation process that tries to substitute itself for the market, that misses the beauty of the way in which markets can allocate scarce resources properly. … we would suggest eliminating reliance on the simple categorization of land into urban service areas and urban expansion areas and rural areas, recognizing a need for a real variety of zoning and permitting approaches and urban models. …I think that Florida is playing with fire with regard to overstepping its governmental authority with its Growth Management Act (remarks of John Cooper, James Madison Institute in Tallahassee in Sarasota County 1991: 31-34).

The variety of viewpoints and specific criticisms and solutions offered in the conference reflected local as well as broader global ideologies and structures that influenced the continuing growth management debate in Sarasota County. Opposing community visions continued to compete for the attention of citizens, planners, and elected officials. Anti-growth and pro-growth interests directly clashed on multiple issues including urban sprawl, land use compatibility, and paying for growth. The Growth-restraint and Environmental Organization (GEO) kicked off the 1990's with an unsuccessful attempt to pass a two-year ban on most new construction in the county. Then, in 1994, the Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations (a coalition of 37 community groups representing an estimated 25,000 residents, and GEO, sought changes in the County charter to seek greater voter approval for changes to the land use plan and for rezoning. A major issue was to protect existing development, i.e. residential neighborhoods, from the intrusion of incompatible new development (Foster 1994-A). The Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) or Locally Unwanted Land Use (LULU) arguments have grown throughout the 1990's. This has been supported by objectives and policies in

107

Apoxsee that sought to protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible development. These provisions, which had already been in the plan, were enhanced in 1991 and again in 1996. Incompatibilities were measured based on inconsistencies in type, density, and intensity of use as well as impacts such as traffic and noise. Mitigating actions included reducing the density of use, changes to site and building design, and additional development buffers. Applicants for land use and zoning changes were required to pay for public workshops to address and resolve issues (Sarasota County Planning Department 1996). Efforts by individual residents, neighborhood associations and organized anti-growth groups along with the institutionalized policies and procedures has discouraged infill and protected the existing low-density urban environment (Sams 1993, Foster 1994-A, Hielscher 1998, Retsinas 1999-D). Thus, land that was otherwise suitable for higher density development within the urban containment line, has become a battleground, discouraging investors and developers and effectively removing land from the available supply. This in turn has put pressure on vacant lands further removed from existing neighborhoods, promoting scattered and leapfrog development, i.e. urban sprawl. The debate concerning whether and how growth pays for itself revolved around the premise that property taxes and other fees do not completely pay for the infrastructure and services necessary for growth. Sarasota County addressed the financing of necessary infrastructure via general ad valorum taxes, special taxes, and impact fees. In 1989 via referendum, the local-state and civil society adopted an infrastructure surtax, a one cent local option sales tax for public facilities pursuant to Chapter 212.0055 in the Florida Statutes. Also, the county approved additional one cent, local option gas taxes. Finally, there was a franchise utility fee (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1990). However, these fees were not sufficient to pay for all necessary facilities and the county enacted impact fees as well. Impact fees are intended to supplement and ideally ensure that growth pays for itself, i.e., ensure that growth is not subsidized by existing development. Impact fees are tied to the issue of urban sprawl by the argument that existing development in the urban centers have been subsidizing new development that has leapfrogged to the urban fringe and beyond. In Sarasota County, impact fees have been hotly debated throughout the 1990s, resulting in both increases and decreases in the fees at varying times. The battle over impact fees reflects the battle over growth and sprawl.

108

The following issues were raised:

1) Development interests argue that impact fees hurt growth because they are too high. (Thomson 1996-A) a) Lee Weatherington, president of the Homebuilders Association of Sarasota says that "Impact fees are driving housing out of the reach of the human race" McKanic 1992) b) Bill Walkik, executive director of the Homebuilders Association of Sarasota says that impact fees contribute to a shortage of affordable housing and an "elitist society" (McKanic 1992) c) Impact fees discourage development and hurt the local economy (Foster 1993) 2) Planning and anti-growth interests argue that impact fees are too low. (Thomson 1996-A) a) Higher fees promote better planning and development (McKanic 1992) b) Impact fees are a logical component of funding growth c) Impact fees must be viewed as only a part of government charges to support development (Foster 1993) 3) Impact fees are unfair a) Disparate impact fees charged by adjacent local governments (Sarasota and Manatee Counties) will promote development in one area at the expense of another. Sarasota County's impact fees have historically been much higher than Manatee County's fees. Sarasota business interests charge that this isn't fair and that all fees should be lowered. (McKanic 1992, Thomson 1996-B) b) Impact fees should be set at a level to be competitive (McKanic 1992, Brown 1994)

All of these taxes and fees continued to fall short of facility and service needs and by 1999 it was estimated that the county had a deficit of $600 million for transportation projects over the next 20 years (Binette 1999). During the 1990s, minor changes to the land use plan have expanded development opportunities in previously rural areas. These included employment centers east of I-75, the largest being the University Place Development of Regional Impact, located just east of I-75 on the northern county boundary adjacent to Manatee County (Sarasota County Planning Department 1996-A). These employment centers were located to take advantage of the interstate and would draw workers from outside of Sarasota County. But they would also encourage further residential growth east of I-75. All along, the sentiment supporting long-term planning was growing (Foster 1994-B). By 1995, the county to conducted a complete evaluation and appraisal of its comprehensive plan, a periodic review required by the State. The Plan would be updated based on the State required Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) (Sarasota County Planning Department 1996-A). The

109

EAR showed that existing development approvals would allow for over 27,000 additional dwelling units. Other vacant tracts without development approvals would allow for an additional 19,000 dwelling units. In total, 46,000 additional dwelling units could be built within the existing urban containment line. This would be over 200% of the projected need for the year 2005. This number is likely low because it was based in part on projected development at the historical low density of below three dwelling units per acre. Also, it did not account for development in the incorporated cities, especially North Port, which had tens of thousands of unbuilt lots. In any case, the analysis was enough for the county to maintain the position of the urban containment line although as noted, additional urban development was allowed to the south and in the bulge which added about 2,000 potential dwelling units to the existing supply (Sarasota County Planning Department 1996-A and 1996-B). The EAR noted that the current policy for regulating density, called the urban residential density matrix, like the concentric intensity bands before it, was not effective in encouraging the desired development pattern in the urban area, particularly higher densities proximate to activity centers. The EAR recommended the replacement of this approach with a more specific definition of urban densities. The subsequent plan amendment in 1996 adopted multiple residential density categories. These included low density at less than 2 dwelling units per acre, moderate density at 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre, medium density at 5 to 9 dwelling units per acre and high density at 9 to 13 dwelling units per acre. In making these revisions, some references to urban sprawl were deleted (Sarasota County Planning Department 1996-A and 1996-B). More importantly, these maximum densities continue to promote a low-density pattern. An examination of the future land use map shows that most of the urban area is designated for low and moderate densities. There are no minimum densities. The Plan continued to promote "the orderly development of the land uses needed to accommodate the projected growth" (Sarasota County Planning Department 1996-B: Goal 3). The EAR emphasized that “A basic premise of the Florida Growth Management Act of 1985 is that the urban areas designated in comprehensive plans be adequate to accommodate projected growth” (Sarasota County Planning Department 1996-A: 10-33). State law required that the land use plan be based on population projections and needs. The pleadings of previous planning and legal advisors and the enforcement of the law by the

110

Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA), through its power to review and approve local plans, heightened attention on this issue. It was clear that the law required the accommodation of projected growth but an overly generous land use allocation was perceived to encourage urban sprawl. The FDCA had challenged numerous counties for designating too much land for development. Sarasota County's solution was to establish by policy that the Urban Service Area be adequate to accommodate a minimum of 133 % of the projected dwelling units for the next ten year period (Sarasota County Planning Department 1997). This was a minimum. In actuality, the Plan allowed for over 200% of the projected need. With regard to the bulk of the area east of I-75, Sarasota County adopted new Apoxsee policy 4.1.7 in 1996 which, for the first time, called for long-range plan of development east of Interstate 75. Policy 4.1.7 reads as follows:

A plan shall be prepared for the area east of I-75, excluding the areas to the east and south of the Public Conservation Areas, which shall delineate the ultimate uses to which the land shall be put. The planning process shall be initiated no later than six months after adoption of this policy. The planning process shall utilize vision planning techniques; shall evaluate the land consumption and fiscal costs of alternative development patterns; and, shall take into consideration existing land uses, the remaining development capacity in the Urban Service Areas and the Future Urban Service Area relative to projected demand to the year 2050, the comprehensive plans of the adjoining counties, the projected capital improvement needs of alternative scenarios, and the impact on existing and proposed facilities and services in the urbanized areas of the County (Sarasota County Planning Department 1997).

Throughout the 1990's, the county continued to consolidate and centralized water and wastewater infrastructure under county control. This was facilitated by the adoption of the The Franchise Acquisition, Consolidation, Implementation Plan and the Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Reuse Master Plan in 1993/4. However, by the middle of the decade, there were still numerous franchises and large areas of the county served by private operators. Also, large areas of the urban area were still served by individual wells and septic tanks (Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. 1994). The county established an Urban Services Area to prioritize the provision of new services in 1996 (Sarasota County Planning Department 1996-A). The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) identified the link between poor infrastructure planning and urban sprawl. The SWFRPC noted that: A new facility, unless

111

carefully planned and sited, may produce urban sprawl and less dense development (Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1995: 11). By 1999, the county supplied approximately two-thirds of the potable water and one third of wastewater treatment within the Urban Service Area (Sarasota County 1999). The provision of centralized infrastructure was in large measure designated to retrofit areas that had already manifest a sprawl pattern of development rather than facilitate the direction of growth into a more compact, higher density pattern. After the intense debates during the evaluation and appraisal report process on whether to extend the urban boundary east of I-75, the county was to proceed, pursuant to Policy 4.1.7 above, to improve its plan for the area. However, there were many residents who were dissatisfied with county leadership on this issue and wanted to find a better way to plan, independent of county control. An independent group, called the Multi-Stakeholders Group (MSG), was created out of a meeting between Bill Zoller, an east-county homeowner and Bill Couch, a Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce executive in June, 1995 (Retsinas 1998). It included 30 community leaders representing all viewpoints of the growth management debate “with the lofty expectation that if developers, environmentalists and others with a stake in the growth debate sat down and talked, they could reach consensus” (Retsinas 1999-C.). They sought to "bring common sense to future land use in Sarasota County …tempered by the reality of the present [and] the obvious futures that face us" (Sarasota Multi-Stakeholder Group 1997: 2). The MSG criticized the "historic failure to plan on an overall basis." It noted the many negative impacts of the "current trend of spreading out from the urban core." It concluded that "growth and development will continue in a piecemeal and haphazard manner unless the community finds a new way to make decisions" (Sarasota Multi-Stakeholder Group 1997: 26- 34). The MSG identified urban sprawl as a major problem and argued that the county had failed to stop or discourage sprawl in its planning to date. For the area east of I-75, it noted the extensive development that had already occurred despite the growth boundary. Finally, the MSG reached consensus on a number of guiding principles that could be used to plan for the area east of I-75. These principles included the following with the number in parenthesis representing the percentage of members agreeing to a principle:

112

Rural character is an important part of Sarasota County and should be part of the mix to maintain a diverse quality of life (96% respondent support); Planning for the future of Sarasota County must balance the pace of growth with available resources, both natural and economic (86%); Planning for the future of Sarasota County must take into account micro and macro influences - we are not alone (82%); Planning for the future of Sarasota County must balance protecting and preserving the natural environment with economic viability in the market place (75%); Emphasis needs to be given to the establishment of environmental corridors and the protection of habitat for endangered, threatened, and species of special concern. (75%); and Planning for the future of Sarasota County must be based on Sarasota County’s right, to the greatest extent possible, to determine its own destiny within the context of all the “external” forces which may be brought to bear on (50%) (Sarasota Multi Stakeholder Group 1997, 44-47).

These guiding principles, arrived at after a lengthy and intense process, were not significantly different from the guiding principles that the County and the county planners had been identifying for the previous 30 years. Moreover, for the most part, they were vague and nebulous statements while resonating with the common ideology of the community. The MSG specified four integrated components considered “fundamental to the planning of the area east of I-75” (Sarasota Multi Stakeholder Group 1997: 48-62). These components along with some of the associated goals, objectives, desired outcomes, and policy examples are: protecting the natural environment, protecting rural lifestyles and land uses; ensuring the coordinated provision of infrastructure, ensuring the continuation of agriculture; and collaborative planning. These statements provided additional discursive explanations or reasons for what the MSG hoped to achieve. These included a high quality of life via environmental quality; stopping urban sprawl; protecting property rights; balancing interests; and acknowledging multiple lifestyle choices. The MSG reached the broad consensus that “under certain circumstances, new urban densities and commercial development may be acceptable east of I-75” (Sarasota Multi Stakeholder Group 1997: 64). However, there was great disagreement regarding the circumstances of growth. Points of disagreement included the desirability of 5-10 acre lots; the pattern of development vs. the timing of development; carrying capacity vs. resource management; agricultural viability vs. other rural uses; and single vs. mixed use development.

113

The MSG discussions regarding 5-10 acre lots was typical of the disagreements and the report stated “The divergence in interpretation points to the central truth – five and ten acre lots are essentially black screens or Rorschach ink blots that people project their own views, hopes, and fears onto” (Sarasota Multi Stakeholder Group 1997: 66). The MSG attempted to integrate the multiple competing ideologies by suggesting that there could be a plan where “there are satisfied stakeholders, happy campers, something for everyone” and that this can be achieved in part through both regulations and “incentives for landowners to do the right thing” (Sarasota Multi Stakeholder Group 1997, 52-53). It became clear that "in the absence of specific details, its [MSG’s] recommendations were difficult for others to apply to the creation of future land use plans" (Sarasota Multi- Stakeholder Group 1999, 1). At this point, the county entered into a limited engagement with the MSG by providing funding and additional staff support. This effort led to more specific recommendations but less group consensus. County long-range planner, Rick Drummond said, “We’re trying to figure out a way not to have a discussion at the extremes" (Retsinas 1999-A). Many land use visions were argued to be consistent with the guiding principles. However, ultimately, the MSG group agreed to disagree. They could not reach consensus on what natural and cultural resources to protect, or how to protect them; what degree of rural lifestyles and land uses should continue, or how; what level of development to plan; and what level and type of infrastructure to incorporate (Sarasota Multi-Stakeholder Group 1999, 6). The MSG proposed two competing land use visions for the area east of I-75 (in the north county area). The first vision attempts to preserve as much of the existing rural lifestyle and natural environment as possible by limiting future growth. This vision is presented as being consistent with the County's long standing policy to limit growth east of I-75. The second vision argues that inevitable population growth and development needs must be recognized. This vision proposes a dramatic increase in development east of I-75. However, this development is to be in the form of multiple, small, self-sustaining villages. These villages would be surrounded by greenways and agricultural lands. The majority of the area would be at low and moderate densities, up to three dwelling units per acre. Zoller said the area should be "left for farmers, dog kennels, horse stables and other rural uses. If more development is allowed, he added, the current rebuilding boom in downtown

114

Sarasota will stop (Higgins 1999). While the development interests argued that the lack of a development plan for the area east of I-75 would result in worse sprawl (Retsinas 1999-C). “Two things are worse than good planning – bad planning and the absence of any planning. The existing comp plan for that area is an example of no planning,” said Dana West, an environmental planner with Biological Research Associates. “There will be a time when portions of east of 75 will need to be developed. We can’t wait until it starts happening to plan for it.” (Retsinas 1999-A). The MSG helped to focus the debate in the county toward two specific visions. County government responded by conducting a series of "fact-finding workshops on growth management." This led the Board of County Commissioners to invite the Urban Land Institute (ULI), a development think tank funded primarily by the development industry, to provide its planning advice via a ULI Advisory Services Panel. This was a panel of land use experts who came to Sarasota County for an intense week of information gathering. The specific request was as follows:

Sarasota County Government seeks a ULI Advisory panel’s recommendations on how Sarasota County can continue to grow, yet balance economic development, the preservation/conservation of environmentally sensitive land, maintain sound county fiscal policy, and maintain or improve its quality of life (Urban Land Institute 1999-B: 7).

The ULI report represented "planners" as having special knowledge. ULI promoted itself as “one of America’s most respected and widely quoted sources of objective information on urban planning, growth, and development” [and provides] “the finest expertise in the real estate field to bear on complex land use planning and development projects” (Urban Land Institute 1999-B: 2-3). The report stated that

Twenty-five years since Sarasota County crafted its first growth management strategy, the perspective of time and the evolution of new understandings about growth management offer a unique opportunity to correct past mistakes and to strengthen the economic, environmental, and social future of the country (Urban Land Institute 1999-B: 9).

The workshops conducted by ULI elicited testimony reflective of the ongoing debate. Pro-growth advocates argued that the area must be planned for more development or else haphazard and scattered urban sprawl will result. Anti-growth advocates argued for retaining rural land uses (Urban Land Institute 1999-A).

115

The Sarasota Farm Bureau expressed its position that growth management was necessary to discourage sprawl and could be done in a way to protect private property rights:

we strongly believe in and uphold the sanctity of private property rights upon which this county was founded. Short of constituting a nuisance or public health hazard, property owners should be allowed and encouraged to use their property for their own benefit.

we recognized that growth management is critical to Florida's growth. Agricultural lands should be protected by incentives which ensure economic vitality of agricultural activities.

The policies should not contribute to urban sprawl and should maximize use of existing facilities and services.

Sometimes it is necessary to place some restrictions on land use and development for the benefit of society as a whole.

Land use regulations are absolutely necessary for a balanced growth management policy. Private property rights must always be acknowledged and protected as essential to any market economy. The rights of the public are also well established in law. It is definitely a delicate balancing act (Urban Land Institute 1999-A).

The ULI concluded that Sarasota County lacked a clear vision for future growth and development. They were also critical of the County's overall planning and zoning. ULI stated that the Counties zoning ordinance "encourages – perhaps unintentionally – suburban sprawl and automobile dependence," because of the low maximum densities allowed. They state that "The very low densities in Sarasota County cause development to spread out and housing to be less affordable than it would be otherwise, and increase the cost of providing public services." Their solution was to encourage infill west of I-75 and allow growth east of I-75. Growth was encouraged everywhere (Urban Land Institute 1999-B). The desire to maintain and stimulate development in the urban core of Sarasota County was not a new issue. Downtown revitalization was promoted in the State Comprehensive Plan, the Southwest Florida Regional Policy Plan (Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1995), and the various local plans (Sarasota County 2000-A). The City of Sarasota had taken actions, including the adoption of a downtown master plan by renowned urban architect/planner Andres Duany to promote “urban” uses downtown (City of Sarasota Planning Department 2000).

116

The State Comprehensive Plan includes policies for downtown revitalization. The Southwest Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan supports downtown revitalization. Goal ll-9 states, "The regulatory programs in the Region should recognize the desirability of improving existing developed areas and businesses" and Policy 7 states, "Comprehensive plans and land development regulations should increase densities and infill developments in centralized urban areas (Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1995: 11-19). Yet, the Urban Land Institute stated that:

…an insufficient amount of attention has been paid to improving the opportunities for high-quality infill development and redevelopment in the county’s existing Urban Service Area. Yet this element is crucial to achieving the county’s overall growth management objectives. The panel recognizes that community resistance to infill development and redevelopment has made this type of growth very difficult to implement (Urban Land Institute 1999: 20).

Despite the Urban Land Institute’s dire pronouncement, examples of downtown revitalization abound. Of particular note is a new luxury condominium, The Renaissance of Sarasota. Units are selling from $200,000 to $600.000 and higher. Advertisements for the Renaissance proclaim that "The City is Alive. Move into it!” (Add Inc. 2000). Other luxury high rises already exist, including for example Marina Tower with prices starting at $500,000 (Liang 2000). Although the core of the City of Sarasota and the quaint retail center of Venice appear to be thriving today after struggling in previous years, the vast bulk of new housing is being built in low-density, single family subdivisions, often far from the urban core. Low density development appears to be the housing of choice even when developers offer higher density options. In 1984, Palmer Ranch was approved for 10,000 du on 5,000 acres. Multi-family development was planned, but has not been fully developed because of the perception of low market demand for higher densities.

William B. Hager, vice president of the Palmer Ranch, who said environmental constraints and home buyers’ preference for single-family homes over condominiums have caused Ranch planners to modify their original projection. Stephen F. Story, chairman of the board of Coast Bank, whose subsidiary is a co- owner of the ranch stated that, Sarasota is a real single-family town. It’s the predominant market throughout. There’s very little inland condominium development (Warren 1991-B).

117

Although Palmer Ranch had promoted some higher density development west of I-75, the bulk of the real estate industry actively promotes low-density suburban living east of Interstate 75 as evidenced by real estate promotional brochures that are saturated with advertisements for such housing. Residential subdivisions include The Hammocks, Heritage Oaks, and Laurel Lakes, all of which are located east of I-75 (ADD Inc. 2000). The Legends at Tatum Ridge by Centex Homes is located 2 miles east of Interstate 75 off of Fruitville Road (Liang 2000 and ADD 2000). The Saddle Oak Estates advertisement asks potential buyers to "enjoy the wide open space of 300 acres of Florida's natural beauty. Homesites are dotted with mature oaks, pines, palms and wildflowers. There's still time to purchase one of only 48 homesites, but hurry!" Saddle Oaks is located out Clark Rd, miles east of I-75 (ADD Inc. 2000). Many of these new subdivisions are deed restricted, offering the promise of a homogeneous life style, that is similarly sized and priced housing which means similar incomes. The pull of the suburban life style is in full force. ULI's comment about the unintentional actions of the county was revealing. Clearly, the County had avowed to pursue an anti-sprawl planning program for the last 30 years. Yet sprawl had occurred. Sprawl was allowed and even encouraged by the County's plans and other actions. Yet there was no suggestion or charge that the county was intentionally promoting sprawl while deceiving the public with an anti-sprawl rhetoric. The MSG and ULI studies reflected the consensus that there was a problem. However, the problem was constructed differently by the pro-growth and anti-growth advocates. Pro- growth advocates argued that planning was necessary to ensure that the impacts of inevitable growth would be addressed (Thomson 1998-A). Anti-growth advocates argued for planning, but against growth accommodation and sought to find ways to control and redirect growth. Additionally, there was a great desire to find a solution to the problem. This solution should come through a community consensus, the MSG approach, and/or be supported by good planning, the Urban Land Institute approach. Additionally, the MSG and ULI studies reflected the limits on the local state to craft an independent solution. First, the MSG process was initiated because of the unwillingness of the Board of County Commissioners to address widespread concerns. The Board of County Commissioners continued to sit on the fence between the pro-growth (mostly factions of capital interests) and anti-growth camps (mostly composed of civil society).

118

The recommendations of the ULI study appeared to correspond to the 1999 Sarasota County Government Citizen Opinion Survey by the Florida Institute of Government at the University of South Florida. In this survey, respondents were asked for their preference for land use east of I-75. The results were: 44% favor mixed use; 18% favored remain rural; 13% favored residential; 7 % favored commercial; and 9 % keep as is. While not an overwhelming mandate, the survey indicated that most people thought the area should be developed for mostly urban uses. Otherwise, population growth and traffic/transportation were the most commonly cited issues confronting the County in 1999. This was also true in 98, except the order was reversed with traffic/transportation being the most cited issue (Florida Institute of Government at USF 1999). Comments expressed at the time included:

…the county needs to understand its growth and plan for it better. The county has some huge issues on its plate that it hasn't come to grips with," she said. "It desperately needs to do some long-term planning." She mentioned issues such as planning for the inevitable growth east of Interstate 75 … said Patterson (Thomson 1998-A).

It's not at all bad for growth to follow a slow, logical pattern. I don't see it as incumbent for the Board of County Commissioners to build everything now, Commissioner Nora Patterson said (Retsinas 1999-B).

In response to the MSG and ULI criticisms and recommendations, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to pursue principles for creating a Sustainable Community with an Action Plan for an I.D.E.A.L. Future (Intelligent Design, Effective Action and Leadership). After holding yet another conference with State and nationally known experts, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to refine and implement a Resource Management Area (RMA) system (Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners 2000-A). The Resource Management Area system proposes to divide the county into geographic regions that exhibit particular traits in order to applying uniquely appropriate planning strategies to each region. The six regions are greenway spine, villages/open space, rural heritage/estate, agriculture reserve, urban/suburban, and economic development. Interestingly though, an Economic Development RMA is located east of I-75 in the northern part of the county while the villages/open space RMA is located in the MSG study area. Clearly, the County had decided on planning for development east of I-75, or option two of the MSG. County documents state that:

119

The Villages / Open Space Resource Management Area creates an opportunity for a new form of development in Sarasota County to replace what has become known as suburban sprawl. This RMA encourages the creation of compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly villages, set within large areas of permanent open space. Although linked by the Greenway Spine and infrastructure corridors, villages are designed to have definite boundaries based on pedestrian travel distances, and to contain most of the needs of daily life. Village / Open Space development is intended to prevent sprawl (as defined by Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code) (Sarasota County 2000-A).

The goals of the Resource Management Area approach include: preserve and strengthen existing communities; provide for a variety of land uses and lifestyles to support residents of diverse ages, incomes, and family sizes; preserve environmental systems; direct population away from floodplains; avoid urban sprawl; reduce automobile trips; create efficiency in planning and provision of infrastructure; provide county central utilities; conserve water and energy; allocate development costs appropriately; preserve rural character, including opportunities for agriculture; and balance jobs with housing. Once again, these goals are not significantly different from the same planning goals that Sarasota County has pursued over the last 30 years. At this point in time, it is unclear that the mechanisms used to achieve these goals will be effective (Sarasota County Planning Department 2000). But, Sarasota County government continues to espouse the idea that planning is not just an exercise, but an effective mechanism for shaping the future (Sarasota County-A 2000). Finally in April of 2001, the Board of County Commissioners committed $760,000 for outside consultants to complete a detailed plan for east of I-75 (Binette 2001). This action could be interpreted as follows: First, the Board of County Commissioners, recognizing the potential political implications of this decision, decides to once again seek outside counsel. By relying on outside experts, the Board of County Commissioners is somewhat buffered by any blame that may accrue from this monumental decision. Second, by choosing to spend a large sum of money to plan an area that has already been studied for years by the County's planning staff, local residents, and outside experts, the Board of County Commissioners appears to be taking the position that only the best and most detailed Plan will suffice. This is responsive to the complaint that the County's past planning has been poor, despite claims that it was state-of-the- art. It is also responsive to the criticism that past planning was too generalized.

120

In year 2000, graduate students from the University of Florida College of Design, Construction and Planning participated in an Environmental Design Practicum, a collaborative studio, to develop a land use plan for Manatee and Sarasota counties. The stated intentions of the plan included the discouragement of urban sprawl by protecting agricultural lands and natural resources and promoting development within an urban service boundary. But the actual plan was one that extended the urban service boundary to accommodate projected growth. The proposed plan accommodated the existing sprawl pattern and allowed for a continuation of that pattern, and thus was a sprawl enabler (Carr and Zwick 2000). This planning effort was the subject of predictable criticism and praise. The urban-line shift upset Dan Lobeck, president of the Growth-restraint Environmental Organization. He said he was "deeply disappointed with the radical pro-growth plan" that the students developed. Giovanna Deveny, a member of the Heritage Group, a coalition of neighborhood groups that asked for the study told the students that they had just heard from a "radical critic" [i.e. Lobeck]and assured them that they did a good job"(Binette 2000-A). As Sarasota County was struggling with land use planning east of I-75 in the northern portion of the county, the south continued to have an abundant urban land supply. Despite this fact, urban sprawl became an urgent issue with the annexation of 17,325 acres by the City of North Port. This acreage is greater than the combined areas of the cities of Sarasota and Venice. While it might appear to be consistent with Sarasota County's southern growth plans, because the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan designates a portion of the proposed annexation area as a Future Urban Area, the current designation for these areas is generally rural 1/5 Additionally, North Port is still mostly undeveloped, having approximately 58,700 vacant lots. (Gray 2000). The critical question becomes what are North Port's plans for this huge annexed area. According to the proposed North Port comprehensive plan amendment, this area would allow 20,430 new homes and apartments, 3,678,561 square feet of retail, 1,175 hotel units, 6,774,734 square feet of office, and 10,244,005 square feet of industrial. This land would provide for a potential population increase of 47,000, double the current North Port population of 24,855. The City of Sarasota's population is only 51,315. This means that the residential density would be lower, just slightly over 1 dwelling unit per acre, without accounting for the non-residential acreage (Gray 2000).

121

This action by North Port reveals a further weakness in the growth management capabilities of Sarasota County. Namely, if the county does not respond to pleas from capital/development interests to allow development, other local governments may be willing to respond. However, it should be noted that it appears that the North Port expansion will not proceed forward at this time. Currently in Florida, the annexation of land by cities is a hotly contested issue. Much of the problem goes back to State law that provides for independent actions of local governments through home rule powers. This fractured legal framework has a constraining effect on the control of development patterns. By the end of the 1990’s the urban containment line had become a symbol of the fight against urban sprawl. This happened despite the fact that containment line did not contain the urban area and despite the fact that the line may have facilitated a manifestation of sprawl that was even worse than the urban sprawl the line was trying to prevent. Yet the proponents of the line fought hard to keep it, while the opponents of the line fought to either remove it entirely or push it much further east. The containment line had a mystical quality about it. People knew of the line, knew that it did have an effect on the density and pattern of growth, but did not fully comprehend what that effect was. This sentiment is wonderfully represented in the following excerpt from the Sarasota Herald Tribune.

You can’t see it, hear it, or touch it, but for more than two decades, it has helped shape life in Sarasota County and beyond. It has generated endless controversy while affecting traffic, taxes, development and other facets of everyday life. This invisible force is Sarasota County’s urban growth boundary, a line drawn on a planning map more than 20 years ago (Hull 1999).

Some believed that because the line constricted land supply, land prices were higher, discouraging development in Sarasota County and driving developers and new homeowners to neighboring Manatee County as well as Charlotte County to the south. Clearly, when the line was first drawn, it contained a far greater supply of developable land relative to the demand at the time and thus likely had a lesser effect on land prices and urban concentration. Admittedly, “At the time, the highway was viewed as being in the boondocks” (Hull 1999). Some believed that the line helped to concentrate growth and facilitate the City of Sarasota’s downtown revival. But interestingly, the line has been in place since 1969 and during periods when downtown

122

# ######## ## ## ##### # # ####### ### #### # ################### # ##### ### ######## ##################### ## # ##### # #### ######### # ########### # # # ## # ###### #### # ###### ############## 1900 - 1989 ##### ## ########## # ########## # ###### ### ############ ##### ##### # ######### ### ########## ############### ######### ## ######## #### ###### ######### ############ ####### ## #### # ##### ########### ### # # ####### ## 1990 - 1997 # ## ## ###################### ##### # ### # # ####### ### ############## #### ## #### #### # ####### ########################## #### ### #### # # # # ## ##################################### ######## # # # # ##### ########### ##### ## ########## #### ####### 1 Dot = 50 #### ### ## ########### # #### # ####### ################## # ### #### # # ######## ##### ##### ################# #### #### ## # ##### # # ### ###### ######################### ### # # # ## # ###### # # ## ######## ############### ###### # # Dwelling Units ##### ## ## ################ ############### ## # # ##### ###### ############# ### ###### # #### # # # # ##### #### #### ## ############################# # # ##### ####################################### # #### ## ## ### ############### ###### ################## #### ## # ## #### ### ### ######### ##### ########### # ## # ## ## # ########### #### #### ########## ### # # #### ##### #### # ############## ## #### ###### ## # #### ###### ### ###### ######## ### # ########## ### ############## ####### ### ##### # # ################################# # ### ## ## # ################# ## ############### # # ## # # ################################ # ### # # ######### ################## ## # # ## # # # ###################### ##### ###### ## # # ######## ##################### ### # # ####### ### ########## ## # ### ############# ## # #### ##### ### # ### # # # #### # # ## # # ############# # ## #### ### # # # ##### #### ########## # ### ### ######### #### ### # ###### ## ##### # ## # ###### # ## ###### ## # ### ## ## ### ## ### ### # ## # # ##### # # ###### #### # ## ## # ### # ## ## ### ## ## # # # ######## # ## # # #### # ## # ## #### ## ## ## ##### ###### # # ## # # ############## # # # # #### ### ###### # # # ########### ### # #### ## # ### ## ### ### # ### #### ############## #### # ### ################ ###### ##### ######## ###### ### ## # ############## ###### ## ################### ####### # ## ## ###################### ### # ##### # # #### ## ## ###### ###### ### # ##################### #### # ############### ##### ## # # ############ #### # #### ##### ### #### ### ## ####### # # ## ### ####### # #### ### # # # # # # # ##### ############ ## #### # # # # # # ############ #### # ### # #### # # ##### ### ## # # ## ## # # ### # #### ##### ### ############## # # ## ## # ###### #### ## ###### ####### ## ####### # # # # ## ###### ########### ### ##### # #### # #### ### ## #### # ## # # ####### # # ### # # ######### # ######## ### # ### # ## ## ## # ### # ## ############# ############ #### ## # ## ############## ####### ### ## ########## # # ## ###### ##### ## ######### # ### ##### # # # # ## ######### ## ## # # # ##### # ######### # # ## ### # ### # ### ## # # ### ####### ######### # # # # ####### # ### ### 02468Miles # ### # ## #### ## #### # # ### ### # ####### ## ####### # #### #### # ###### ## ### ### ## # ## # # # # # ###### ## # ## ####

Figure 17: Sarasota Residential Development - 1997 (Sarasota County 1999)

123

Sarasota was perceived to be in decline. These ideas as to how the line either promotes good growth in the urban core or discourages good growth in suburbia are both viewed as powerfully compelling reasons to either maintain or change the line and reflect the “deep philosophical differences driving the debate” (Hull 1999). One key participate noted that the urban service boundary did a good job until it was really needed. In other words, the I-75 boundary line was not contested because there was no pressure. Now that it is being contested, there is pressure to go beyond it. The question being, was it really a meaningful urban growth boundary (Interview 6)? The current pattern of residential development is shown in Figure 17.

Manatee County

Manatee County 1940-1970

During the first half of the 1900’s, the Manatee County economy was predominately agricultural, cattle and citrus (Vaughn 1991). This included many large land holdings including the Schroeder-Manatee Ranch of over 21,000 acres dating back to the 1920's. In additional to agricultural activities, shell-mining for roads was a major activity. In 1940, Manatee County's population was 26,098, about 60 % greater than that of Sarasota County. By 1950, the population had grown 33 % to 34,704. 48 % of the population was located in the unincorporated area compared to 32 % in Sarasota County (U.S. Census Bureau 1952). By 1960, the population had grown an additional 99% to 69,168. 59 % of the population was now in the unincorporated county resulting from 70 % of the population growth of the 1950’s (Council on Economic Development 1962). However, Sarasota’s population had grown even faster and was now at 76,895. Like Sarasota County, Manatee County presented an inviting, landscape suitable for living, working, and development. Both counties were experiencing rapid population growth. The local state did not constrain growth. The State of Florida likewise was not involved in land use regulation and up to this time had been in the "business" of growth promotion rather than growth management. Growth promotion was a legitimate undertaking for the county and state government. The nascent environmental movement was weak. Land speculation was evidenced in the extensive subdivision or platting of rural lands in the hope and anticipation of in-migration from northern states.

124

Manatee County adopted a land use plan/comprehensive plan as well as a zoning map in 1956-58. Copies of the original document cannot be located and according to the county planning department, "the original purpose of this plan became obscured through the years by over 900 zoning map changes" (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1978: 6). Therefore, nothing definitive can be said regarding the purpose and intent or the content of these early plans and zoning ordinances. However, the large number of changes indicates an active land use regulatory process and possibly the propensity of the local state to react to zoning change requests from either capital or civil society rather than sustain a consistent vision of how development should occur. In 1978 it was suggested that due to the difficulty of making long range projections, "It is very doubtful that a future land use plan for Manatee County that would have been developed in 1957 could have accurately anticipated the conditions that exist today, except in a very generalized manner" (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1978: 3). Records in the Planning Department show no significant planning activity through the 1960’s. As noted earlier, the State of Florida was active in revising its constitution and establishing the initial laws addressing land sales and authorizing local governments to plan and zone for the purpose of regulating development. These laws did not mandate local action and had no immediate effect on the development activities in Manatee County. The population continued to grow and reached 97,115 by 1970. Agriculture, including cattle, and phosphate mining had a significant presence in the eastern part of Manatee County. IMC Fertilizer Inc./Four Corners Mine (located where Manatee, Hillsborough, Polk, and Hardee counties meet) covered about 27,000 acres (Vaughn 1991).

Manatee County in the 1970s

On January 23, 1973, the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners adopted a new growth policy known as OPUG, “Optimum Population and Urban Growth," with the intent to achieve "ideal growth today & tomorrow" (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1973, 7). The following introductory statements of OPUG are pregnant with imagery and ideology:

The people of Manatee County recognize what rampant growth has done to older urban centers. Manatee County is just now beginning its great growth cycle. There is still time to plan for orderly growth and population control. The Manatee

125

County Board of Commissioners do not want Manatee County to end up as a gargantuan slum rimming lower Tampa Bay. They want to plan for and control the County’s growth in a manner consistent with a quality lifestyle that will improve and endure in the years to come.

The theory behind OPUG is that people need public facilities and services in order to live healthful, productive lives. … By controlling when, where, and how the community can grow, one automatically controls the rate of population increase. Under OPUG, growth is permitted to extend outward from the EUA to coincide with the outward “ripple” extension of the public facilities. In this way, premature development in the fringe area, which parasitizes the existing urban area from public facilities and services are prohibited unless the developer is willing to extend and pay for all of the required public facilities and services at his own expense. Not unless such proposed development has been proven to be self- sufficient and an asset to the County, will its approval be granted.

OPUG is not a policy designed to stop growth. OPUG encourages people and growth – but not just any type of growth. OPUG encourages the number of people that we are capable of furnishing public facilities and services for in the areas of planned growth. There are no plans to build a Chinese Wall around Manatee County (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1973, 4-12).

The OPUG Policy was based on the following reasoning: past experience has demonstrated that unplanned growth of older communities has resulted in the severe degradation of the environment and the human resources; quality of life in Manatee County can be protected and enhanced through a comprehensive long-range plan for its orderly growth and control of population; the most logical and natural pattern of growth is eastward in concentric-like growth stages extending outward from the existing urban area; and it is the intent and purpose of OPUG to enable the community to plan for the future and not be used as a means to deny the future (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1973, 19-20). The ideas behind OPUG were illustrated by the use of some cartoon-like illustrations which nevertheless provided a unique representation of the County’s view of growth and development. One showed a giant octopus as a type of runaway growth monster attacking the county. Another one showed a “Chinese Wall” around the county with a big X through it. The OPUG plan included:

encouraging "orderly growth of the County in a pattern radiating outward from the present developed urban area into the circumventing suburban area, and thence into the rural areas"

126

timing "the actual growth and population density in a sequential manner consistent with the communities ability to extend and provide urban services and facilities that such growth and population will require of the community"

dividing the county into four growth zones: 1. Existing Urban Area (EUA) – “the area presently capable of being served with urban facilities and services;” 2. Urban Growth Area (UGA) – an area currently transitioning from rural to urban and which could reasonably receive urban facilities and services by 1977 (The UGA was located well west of the future I-75 corridor, noting however that due to the particular geometry of the counties, Manatee County had substantially more developable land west of the I-75 corridor that did Sarasota County); 3. Urban Frontier Area (UFA) – a predominately rural area not expected to urbanize until 1978 – 1982; 4. Rural Reserve Area (RRA) – a predominately agricultural area not expected to receive urban services until after 1988 (Figure 18 shows the OPUG Map)

development would be allowed based on current zoning, regardless of the zone

For development proposals in the UFA and RRA, the Manatee Board of County Commissioners may require the developer to provide or pay for the extension of roads and facilities needed by the development and donate or reserve lands for schools, governmental facilities, and recreation and open space

Development in the UFA and RRA cannot utilize public expenditures for roads, facilities, and services during the “initial stages of development” until “such time as taxes are received by the County for the completion of such proposed project.”

requiring public agencies to "concentrate the improvement, extension, and provision of services and facilities within the Existing Urban Area and the Urban Growth Area and shall not materially increase the existing level of service and facilities in the Urban Frontier Area and Rural Reserve Area except as specifically authorized by the Board of County Commissioners in compliance with the spirit and intent of this resolution"

an exception was made for the environs of Myakka City, a small town in the rural area, “because of the antecedent of urban development which has taken place” (Manatee County Planning Department 1973, 20-29).

OPUG established a growth management philosophy that enabled growth as long as necessary public facilities and services are available. County and other governmental agencies were required to concentrate the provision of facilities and services in a compact pattern, thus discouraging a rapidly spreading out of urban development. However, developers had the option to provide or pay for public facilities, regardless of location, so that development that leaped out from the more established urban area was allowed at the developer's cost.

127

Figure 18: OPUG Map (Manatee County Planning Department 1973, 9)

The establishment of the four growth zones and the encouragement of development in two of the zones was, in terms of its symbolic representation of space, a less stern method to define and control the areal expansion of urban development . It was not presented as a regulatory-containment approach per se, but rather as an incentive based approach through the targeting of urban infrastructure to the two inner-most zones. The eastward boundary of the Urban Frontier Area corresponded roughly to the later placement of I-75. [Note that because of the spatial geometry of the two counties, the I-75 alignment encompassed much more land in Manatee County than Sarasota County, with the exception of the North Port area.] At the time that OPUG was adopted, the Urban Growth Area was transitioning from rural to urban and the Urban Frontier Area was predominately rural. Thus, OPUG was concentrating public facilities within an area that was mostly rural and was planning for the development of existing rural areas within the following ten years. The core

128

idea behind OPUG was not to stop the expansion of the urban area, but simply to ensure that public facilities were available and that new development did not unduly impact the ability of county government to provide such facilities. Moreover, OPUG did not address the density, intensity, or mix of land uses as they spread eastward. In this sense, OPUG was a growth and sprawl facilitator. Also during 1973, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council funded a private planning consultant, Milo Smith + Associates, to prepare land use and development regulations for Manatee County. These proposed regulations supported OPUG and also advanced other related planning concerns including:

To attain the maximum coordination and integration of the various land uses so that they can be conveniently and efficiently serviced by community facilities and public streets.

To discourage haphazard, premature, uneconomic or scattered land use and/or development.

To ensure that the citizens and taxpayers of the community will not have to bear the costs resulting from haphazard land development, or the lack of adequate and necessary physical improvements incidental to land use and development (Milo Smith + Associates, Inc. 1973: IV-1 - 3).

In 1975, the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners hired Milo Smith + Associates to prepare a future land use plan for growth through the year 2000. The 1975 Plan was based on the following beliefs: the essence of the planning process [is] the determination of where we want to go and the best means of getting there

the concepts and objectives…are continually subject to change … future land use planning must be considered a continuing process

the bad effects of uncontrolled growth…are well known [and] the avoidance of these bad effects are central to the concept of future land use planning and overall comprehensive planning

the intent of the Future Land Use Plan is to facilitate the economic forces which determine land use while at the same time establish an overall framework in which economic forces and desires can be balanced and integrated to attain the best utilization of the County’s resources

129

the future land use proposals…are based upon…County objectives, existing land use patterns, major street plan proposals, utility systems, and other public facilities (Milo Smith + Associates 1975, 12-13).

The goals and objectives of the plan included: Planned and orderly use and development of land; Ensuring that all development harmoniously fits into the existing natural environment; Preserving the ecological balances which are at work within the County; and Establishing appropriate land use and development regulations and standards which will result in sound and aesthetically pleasing development which are efficiently and economically served with public facilities, streets, and recreation areas (Milo Smith + Associates, Inc. 1975).

The general development policies of the plan supported OPUG, including:

The Manatee County Optimum Population and Urban Growth Plan (OPUG) should be used by all County officials in coordination with the local governments to encourage the control and guidance of growth by:

Encouraging urban growth and development in the Existing Urban Area (EUA) and Urban Growth Area (UGA) and controlling growth in the Urban Frontier Area (UFA) and Rural Reserve Area (RRA);

Guiding urban growth through provision of public facilities and services in the EUA and UGA and withholding these facilities and services from the UFA and RRA, unless a developer is willing to provide all public facilities and services at his own expense and to the satisfaction of the County Commission;

Denying zoning changes in the UFA and RRA unless the applicant provides all the basic public services and the County Commission is assured that the proposed development is not disproportionate with the County’s capacity to provide any additional pubic services and facilities necessary for development;

Regulating development within the UFA and RRA by not constructing any unplanned major highway facilities which would unnecessarily increase the ease of access to areas making them more prone to premature development.

All urbanized portions of Manatee County should be provided with a full range of public facilities and urban services

Review by the school board of all large-scale development proposals

Avoiding strip commercial development along major highways, arterials, and major collectors (Milo Smith + Associates, Inc. 1975).

The 1975 Plan did not contain precise definitions for residential density, allowing for a flexible application. Most of the residentially designated areas were designated low density

130

which was typically characterized as single-family detached homes but allowing for other configurations. Interestingly, in the general background text, the authors noted that on larger tracts, it would be desirable to cluster dwelling units at a high net density and preserve open space. This would achieve cost efficiencies and a more aesthetic appearance. However, this stated desirability was not an actual plan requirement (Milo Smith + Associates 1975, 25). Comprehensive planning up to this point in time had been accomplished based on the initiatives of either Manatee County or the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. In 1975, the State Legislature enacted the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act that mandated comprehensive planning statewide. For the first time, minimum planning requirements were established. Key requirements included: principles, guidelines, and standards for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area; consistency among plan elements, including land use, infrastructure, housing and intergovernmental coordination; economic feasibility; capital improvement planning to ensure availability of public facilities and services; intergovernmental coordination; and public participation in developing the plan. Importantly, the comprehensive plan would no longer be an advisory, generalized goal setting document, but would be the legal instrument that controlled land use. The Act stated that "no public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with comprehensive plans … adopted in conformity with this act" (Brown 1994: 1-24). The new State requirements raised the stakes for planning. Comprehensive plans would be taken more seriously because of their binding effect on what development would be allowed. Manatee County began to tackle the new state planning mandates through an open public process utilizing steering committees. Records from these meetings illustrate that Manatee County public at large, i.e., civil society approached the new planning requirements from a blank slate, as if there were no preexisting plans, no OPUG, and no preconceptions as to how the county should grow. Quotes from steering committee members at the first meetings in 1978 follow: The purpose of our meeting ..[includes] What type of residential development do we want to encourage. … What is the rate of growth we want to accommodate. Should we stage growth on down the road to occur in certain rural areas to preserve our farmlands. … In essence, what do you want your county to be? We also have an opportunity to somehow regulate who pays for development. …impact fees (Steering Committee 1978-A).

131

Growth has brought badly needed prosperity for our developers, our realtors, for the entire economy really … [yet] …We’ve had to lay additional sewer and water mains, build new roads, provide more schools, employ more police and firemen, and the list really seems endless. Leap frog development, or subdivisions approved outside of our urban area, make the cost even more. These costs are disproportionate in the benefits gained (Steering Committee 1978-A).

the county must work to reduce the financial feasibility constraints which restrict both the extension of services to some south county areas and the development of a central sewer system north of the Manatee River (Steering Committee 1978-B).

The immediate purpose of the Future Land Use Plan Element will be to set forth certain principles and standards that will guide development towards a compatible spatial arrangement of the various land use categories necessary to meet our population needs by the year 2000. County objectives, existing land use patterns and trends, transportation plan proposals, utility system proposals, public facilities and environmental constraints will serve as the basis for future land use proposals. The Future Land Use Plan Element should serve as an overall framework in which the various social, economic, and environmental factors can be balanced and integrated to attain the best utilization of the County’s resources. … In summary, planning for the future of land will remain a complex issue as it attempts to create a balance between population and economic growth, multiple uses of land and resources, private rights and public good, and the responsibilities of local, regional, state and federal government (Steering Committee 1978-B).

These quotes encompass a number of the basic growth management debates: 1. planning is effective, through planning local government can determine its future; 2. planning can be used to guide the spatial arrangement of land uses necessary to meet population needs; 3. development has fiscal costs which constrain local government actions and which should be equitably allocated ; 4. development brings prosperity; 5. the costs of leap-frog development (urban sprawl) is disproportionate to the benefits gained; and 6. the plan must balance social, economic and environmental factors. Manatee County, the local state, through the institutionalized agency of the Department of Planning and Development, drew guidance from previous state actions, e.g. OPUG, as well as technical approaches used by planners elsewhere, i.e. global influences. Manatee County planners viewed planning as an ongoing process, based on previous plans as well as existing land use patterns. Plans were viewed as a means to balance social, economic, and environmental factors. Relying on OPUG, the new plan was structured to coordinate expanding land uses with

132

the provision of public facilities and services in order to meet the needs of population growth. (Manatee County Department of Planning and Development 1978). Planning during the 1970's was formulated to support projected growth. The requirement to coordinate growth with the provision of public facilities and services had some effect on the spatial spreading of development eastward, but the plans did not prohibit leapfrog development. Rather, the plans added some regulatory burdens which were intended to guarantee the adequate provisions of facilities and services in a timely manner. Development could continue as long as adequate facilities were provided. The intent of this planning was apparent to local observers who suggested that growth should be limited and moreover, that long range plans for the area east of the proposed I-75 corridor should be made to preclude the eastward extension of suburbia (Manatee County Planning Commission 1978). One prominent example of development eastward toward I-75 was the Tara development of regional impact (Tara DRI). Initial planning, begun in the mid 1970s was for a planned unit development covering 1,137 acres, 4040 dwelling units of which 30 % in single family and the remainder multifamily. Also included was a golf course, tennis club, commercial and office uses. The development was expected to have a 15 year build out period and eventually have 8680 residents. The planning documents for this project did not consider the question of urban sprawl (Tara Development, Ltd. 1980).

Manatee County, 1980s

The Manatee County Planning and Development Department issued a "Technical Analysis" in 1981 that included the County's "knowledge" and assumptions regarding the purpose and effectiveness of comprehensive planning; and urban sprawl. The economy was recognized as being the driving force for population growth and land use. Regional and national economic conditions were understood to affect Manatee County, but it was also recognized that actions and events in Manatee County have an effect on regional and national economic conditions. Additionally, the county recognized the impact of the regional state, i.e. the State of Florida. By enacting the 1975 Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, the regional state forced the local state to take comprehensive planning more seriously, whereas in the past the comprehensive plan was "frequently disregarded by local officials" (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1981: 4-4).

133

The County's synthesis of economics and law (capital and state), however, favored capital interests. It was noted that "land use planning cannot control the overall rate of growth of a metropolitan area such as Manatee County" and the County planners sought to understand growth trends and then plan to support them, rather than using the plan to direct growth (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1981: 4-13). This was contrary to the idealist view of OPUG, that the growth rate could be ameliorated through planning. Thus, while the new plan had the force of law, it was not to be used in a proactive fashion to slow or direct growth, but rather to accommodate and support growth. Manatee County, relying in part on planning studies from around the United States such as: The Costs of Sprawl by Real Estate Research Corporation; Land Use and the Pipe by Richard Tabors; and The Fiscal Impact Handbook by Burchell and Listokin, recognized that different types of development affect the tax burden of existing taxpayers differently and sometimes unfairly (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1981-A, Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1981-B). Manatee planners also were attentive to the urbanization of rural areas and were concerned with how land use planning should address historic communities and villages (Hossfield 1981). The County's understanding of sprawl as the opposite of "planned development" focused on individual developments/subdivisions rather than the broader land use pattern of the county as a whole and also focused on the provision and costs of infrastructure. By emphasizing "planned development," the County followed the precepts of standard zoning which promoted the separation of land use types. They noted that "mixed pattern(s) of development should be discouraged [and] where such land patterns have already occurred, specific corrective land management policies may be required (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1981: 4-24). Issues of perceived compatibility of uses and maintenance of desirable low-density residential areas impacted plan policies, as they also did in Sarasota County. The County identified specific examples of sprawl including leapfrog sprawl into the agricultural area east toward and beyond the planned I-75 highway including low-intensity ranchettes that did not have adequate infrastructure. But other than some limited controls in these agricultural sectors, the County was reluctant to establish strict land use controls to managing the overall spreading out of development and instead sought to establish a flexible

134

"policy framework for land use decisions as they arise" (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1981: 4-16). This approach was consistent with the County's policies to ensure that new development was supported by infrastructure, that the county's infrastructure programs were financially feasible, and that new development paid for new infrastructure rather than being subsidized. It is beyond the scope of this report to delve into the specific county budgets, finances, and tax structure to confirm that new development did indeed pay for needed infrastructure. However, to the extent that the County's overtly required this, Manatee County was addressing a major complaint regarding sprawl, i.e. that costly sprawl occurs because the costs are subsidized by existing (non-sprawl) development. Although the County emphasized infrastructure provision (especially potable water and sanitary sewer), centralized provision of these services was not used to direct the location and distribution of development. Thus the County passed on a powerful tool to control the larger land use pattern. On the other hand, the County aggressively pursued the development of centralized water and sewer infrastructure including the adoption of 201 Facility Plans (beginning in the mid-1970s) that enabled the County to draw upon federal funding. This was in distinct contrast to Sarasota County which repeatedly delayed the establishment of County controlled water and sewer infrastructure. Package sewer plants were allowed to support development eastward, but the County began a long term program to regionalize and centralize water and sewer infrastructure. County policies had the effect of allowing a sprawling development pattern, but ensuring that the development that did occur was appropriately serviced by water and sewer. In Sarasota County, growth was kept within a growth boundary, but much of the growth that occurred was poorly planned with regard to infrastructure. The Manatee Plan established a land use scheme based on corridors, sectors, historical villages in rural areas, industrial areas, and reservoir watersheds. Corridors had particular functions, for example tourist, interstate, and neighborhood. Sectors had particular character, for example single family, single and multiple family, mobile home, residential mix, and agricultural. Reservoir watershed included the Lake Manatee and Evers Reservoir, the primary potable water sources for Manatee County and the City of Bradenton, respectively. Despite this classification system with the apparent semblance of controlling development, the plan was quite general and contained few mandatory provisions. Land use provisions were very broad and

135

flexible. Land use provisions for the two watershed areas that included extensive areas east of I- 75 were also quite general and had limited restrictions (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1981-B; Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1988). Some of the more important goals, objectives, and policies of the Manatee Plan in relation to the issue of urban sprawl, adopted in 1981 and as amended through the mid 1980's included the following (italics added, discourse comments follow in brackets):

Because growth and development will continue within Manatee County, the land use element should be developed as a flexible tool to allow for changes in market conditions and life styles while protecting existing developed areas and the natural systems. [Growth is inevitable. Planning should be flexible rather than directive. The market is paramount.]

Realizing the responsibility of government to provide certain public services and facilities, it is recommended that development should be encouraged in those areas where these public services can be most efficiently and economically provided.

The use of zoning for the purpose of limiting Manatee County's overall rate of growth is strongly discouraged. [Planning and zoning should not limit growth.]

The County shall complete a study analyzing the public costs and revenues generated by new development based upon the type, scale and location of development and the availability and cost of public facilities as well as different revenue scenarios. [The planning process is necessarily linked to rules of legitimation – a positivist/modernist view that a scientific/technical analysis will guide decision making.]

One-family development of similar densities should be grouped together. High density one family developments should not encroach into established urban areas of much lower prevailing density. [Low density is preferable and protected countering attempts to achieve compact development. In this instance, use values of existing urban development are privileged over exchange values for new development.]

A balanced density and use mix is important to the development of residential neighborhoods in mixed use areas. Residential development within each sector should include the various allowable densities and uses in balanced proportion. Within these sectors, one-family dwellings should continue to be the predominant use type among those primary uses permitted, in terms of the percentage of the sector area having zoning or special permit use approval for the various uses. (amended in 1983) [Low density, single family development is preferable.]

136

Urban Sprawl shall be strongly discouraged. Subdivisions, planned developments and zoning change approvals should first occur adjacent to thoroughfares in the developed portions of the County, where public services and facilities can most easily be provided. Future developments should provide for the compact expansion of undeveloped for developing land within the County, rather than a "leap frog" pattern. (amended in 1983) [Urban sprawl is discouraged rather than restricted. Use of the word "should" instead of "shall" allows discretion to a policy that is already quite vague.]

Policies for the Developing sectors, include even fewer land use restrictions and an explicit reference to waiting for the market to show the developing character of the land. Policies for the Sarasota Bay area, require that "land development and design practices shall not adversely affect the economic viability of adjacent agricultural and agribusiness lands." While providing a strong, intentional statement, the meanings of the phrases "adversely affect" and "economic viability" were debatable, weakening the effectiveness of the policy. Policies for the East County sector, east of the Braden River between State Roads 64 and 70 and all areas east I- 75: include the following: The review of new development shall include consideration of availability of public services and facilities and possible stresses imposed by the proposed development, as well as cumulative effects. Where such services or facilities will not be adequate to serve the development, provision of such services and facilities or a pro-rata share of their costs shall be the responsibility of the developer… [This policy was amended in 1983 and is one of the stronger policies although the word "consideration" provides discretion.]

Because it is anticipated that urban growth will gradually expand eastward through the East County Sector, development projects of a transitory nature shall ensure the unrestricted future use of land for the full range of urban residential, commercial and industrial uses as well as agricultural uses (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1988). [This policy provides no limits on growth beyond I-75.]

In 1983 the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners established the Southeast Sector Task Force to plan for an area extending south from State Road 70 to University Parkway (Sarasota County) and west of I-75 to the Pearce Drain (proximate to U.S. 301) forming an area of about 20 square miles. This area was important in part because in encompassed the Braden River and included the Evers Reservoir, the City of Bradenton's potable water supply. In 1983, the southeast sector area was not well planned, although developers were rapidly seeking approval to build. The comprehensive plan in effect at the time, The Manatee Plan, did

137

not address the area in detail and allowed practically any land use. The county had failed to identify this area as an area of rapid growth. In other words, the county had neither directed growth to this area as part of a deliberate land use planning effort nor recognized the market conditions that might favor this area. The county was not prepared for development in terms of land use planning or provision of public facilities. Additionally, the County did not yet have systems in place to ensure that development paid its fair share for necessary public facilities and services. To some degree, the development pressures in the Southeast Area served as a wake-up call for improved county planning (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1983-B). The southeast sector area was under intense development pressure, in part because of I-75 and also because of its proximity to rapid growth areas in Sarasota County to the south. Approximately 10,000 dwelling units had already been approved for the area but were not yet constructed and an additional 8,000 dwelling units had been proposed. This included the Tara DRI as well as Palm Aire, Mote, Circle N Bar Ranch, and Cooper Creek (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1983-B). Some of these proposed developments were linked to high profile politicians. In 1983, Arvida Corporation purchased a 1,100 acre tract from Island Investment Properties (IIP), Ltd, which had purchased the property three years earlier. IIP was owned by State Senator Pat Neal. The Cooper Creek project was developed by (State Senator-) Wilbur Boyd Corporation. Both projects were mixed use projects including light industrial uses (Hielscher 1983; Thomas 1983). Light industrial had been identified as a problem land use by the Southeast Sector Task Force. Despite the intense development pressure and early indicators that the impacts of development could be severe, the Chairman of the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners, Ed Chance, suggested that due to a tight budget year, Manatee County could not afford a planning study. The majority of the Board of County Commissioners disagreed and the study was approved and funded (Sarasota Herald-Tribune 1983). During the course of the Task Force's deliberations, development planning for proposed projects continued (Hielscher 1983; Thomas 1983). These large developments covered a large part of the Southeast Sector, so to some degree, land use planning could only validate vested property rights rather than direct growth.

138

The Southeast Task Force focused on environmental protection of the watershed and the adequate provision of facilities and services paid for by development was a major concern. Urban sprawl was not an explicit consideration per se even though this area, during the 1980's, represented urbanizing fringe of Manatee County. (Southeast Task Force 1983-A-D; Southeast Task Force 1984) The prevailing attitude was that growth was going to come, whether it was planned for or not. Yet, although urban sprawl was not an explicit issue, many of the policies developed by the Task Force would be perceived as anti-sprawl measures by today's standards (Community Affairs 1991; Freilich 1999; Kelly 1993; Nelson and Duncan 1995; Weitz 1999). Issues addressed included: planning the integration of varied uses (mixed uses); ensuring commercial and employment uses to complement residential; supporting higher density residential with mass transit; promoting commercial nodes in lieu of strip commercial (note, while strip commercial is generally seen as a form of urban sprawl there are mixed opinions regarding the concentration of commercial into large nodes); phase development in accord with available public services and facilities; maintain adequate levels of service for major roads (note, many contend that maintaining road level of service in developed areas may unintentionally push development further out); require lower densities in floodplains; and prohibit private package treatment plants (Southeast Task Force 1984). The recommendations of the Task Force were controversial. The City of Bradenton feared pollution of the Evers Reservoir, a potable water supply for the City. This concern was shared by the League of Women Voters of Manatee County, County Commissioners Ed Chance and Westwood Fletcher, and Manasota-88, a local environmental/growth management organization with a particular focus on the destruction of wetlands and overall water resources by urban development (League of Women Voters of Manatee County 1984-A and B, Mason 1984, Manasota-88 1984, Sarasota Herald-Tribune 1984, Todd 1984, Widman 1984). Manasota-88 was particularly virulent in an attack on the pro-development ideology. They wrote:

To intimate the additional development proposed can take place in this area without causing serious harm and large expense to residents of Manatee County represents the height of hypocrisy and is a complete abdication of responsibility by those acting as planners in this instance. Further, an attempt to justify the type of development proposed for this highly sensitive and vital area by focusing on the “personal property rights” issue is equally reprehensible. The courts have ruled that as long as a property owner is permitted some use of his land he is not

139

necessarily entitled to a rezoning to permit the “highest use of his land – in this case, residential development (Manasota-88 1984).

The Manatee County Public Utilities asserted that adequate water, sewer and solid waste capacity could be provided (Wilford 1984). The City of Bradenton which was dependent on the water resources of this area, agreed to the work of the Task Force in large part because some measure of comprehensive planning was better than no planning (Evers 1984). After considerable and lengthy debate, the Task Force's recommendations were adopted by the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners in 1986 (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1986-A). In 1987, Manatee County approved the Evers Reservoir Watershed Plan to further address water quality issues (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1987). The work of the Southeast Sector Task Force reflected the competing ideologies and powers as expressed and used by county politicians and planners, development interests, and civil society. Pro-development interests argued that more land was needed for urban development and that development was preferable to agriculture because agricultural chemicals would pollute the water supply. Pro-planning interests argued that “Extending the urbanized boundary line would cause development to get away” (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission 1986-B). The final product reflected a resolution of this competition. A similar study in the north part of Manatee County, the North County Gateway study also reflected this competition. County planners wrestled with how and even whether the area should be planned. County planners considered the no plan approach, entitled "what will be, will be" as well as various planned approaches. The underlying attitude however, was that growth was inevitable regardless of how it might be planned. County planners stated:

Recognizing the inevitability of new development in the Gateway area, the study stresses the importance of planning for change, and ensuring that the County has in place the necessary land use controls to time and guide new development (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1984).

Manatee County also conducted studies of population growth and growth impacts during this period. The county assessed the net negative cost of development based on location (core- periphery). The cost was highest for rural sites but also significant for suburban sites. School costs were affected most (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1983-A). This lead to the adoption of development impact fees.

140

In 1984, the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners commissioned a study of population and housing. Community leaders in development, banking, agriculture, industry, law, government, civic organizations, and environmental groups were interviewed.

With one exception, all believed growth had the potential to make Manatee County a better place to live. This was felt to be due to increased job opportunities, increased average wages, and infusion of new money for schools, hospitals, cultural amenities and so forth….They felt there was a need to accept growth as a given and to move forward with workable plans to meet the needs generated by growth. … The foresight of County Government in providing for water and sewer was cited as an example of good planning for growth, while the road system was seen as an example of inadequate planning. … [Government] should provide the infrastructure to accommodate growth and should guide it into forms that benefit the community by maintaining quality standards. … [The consultants concluded that:] the attitudes expressed by the Manatee County leadership will lead to neither an acceleration nor a slowing of growth. Further, their views on investment location leads us to the view that development is likely to concentrate downtown, at the fringes of established areas, and in the vicinity of interstate intersections (McWilliams 1984).

In 1987 the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners approved the Evers Watershed Plan. The primary purpose of the Watershed Plan was to protect the water quality of the Evers Reservoir (the potable water supply for the City of Bradenton). The Plan established residential density limits based on location within floodways of the Braden River and its tributaries (one dwelling unit per five acres) and floodplains (one dwelling unit per acre) throughout the watershed. Otherwise, residential development could occur at five dwelling units per acre. Commercial development was restricted and new industrial zoning was prohibited although new industrial development in areas already zoned for industrial uses could proceed with some restrictions. The land use restrictions were not severe and would continue to allow extensive development (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1987-A). The Manatee Plan, as amended through 1988, did not provide specific plans for the location of water and sewer facilities although the general plan of developing centralized facilities continued. The Manatee Plan did not include explicit policies regarding how development would pay for its impacts. Finally, the “Urban major Thoroughfare Plan” did not show any new roads east of I-75 (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1988). The Manatee Plan, as amended up through 1988, did not restrict urban sprawl. Rather, the lack of restrictive and specific policies to control development combined with policies to

141

provide supporting infrastructure, resulted in a plan that promoted low-density residential and leap-frog urban sprawl. Even in cases where the plan could have been interpreted and applied to control growth, county commissioners chose not to apply it in a strict fashion. This was noted after the fact:

Commissioners set the pattern for future growth by approving plans to develop several residential communities east of I-75 – the county’s traditional urban boundary line – in apparent violation of the Manatee Plan. The plan, a 299-page document containing charts, maps and assessments of future needs, was supposed to govern exploding growth in the county. But between August 1984 and January 1985, the commission rezoned 2,700 acres of rural land east of I-75 for high- density urban development. County planners said those decisions appeared to conflict with the Manatee Plan, which strongly discourages urban sprawl and isolated pockets of development east of I-75 (Allard 1990).

Some of the major developments included Cypress Banks covering 1,790 acres and approved for 5,600 dwelling units (later renamed and expanded as Lakewood Ranch), River Club approved for 969 dwelling units, Creekwood approved for 3,000 dwelling units, and Circle N' Bar Ranch including an 18 hole golf course, 3,834 dwelling units and 200,000 sq ft commercial (Allard 1990). This retrospective assessment of the Manatee Plan and urban sprawl provides the opinion that the Manatee Plan was in fact a good plan that discouraged sprawl but was not enforced and placed the blame on the governing body, the Board of County Commissioners. Manatee county has consistently evaluated the plan as good despite evidence that urban sprawl was occurring. This can be contrasted with Sarasota County which periodically has provided negative evaluations of its plans. Leading up to the adoption of a new plan pursuant to the 1985/86 growth management act, discussions regarding growth and growth management included the following elements:

development of vacant lands to the east is inevitable (DeHaan 1988-A; DeHaan 1988-B; Mason 1987).

developers pressuring the county to approve new developments (DeHaan 1988-A; Mason 1987).

discouragement of infill and increased densities in established residential areas (Public Facilities Citizens Advisory Committee 1988).

142

apprehension on the part of agricultural interests regarding the decision to continue farming or sell out to developers (DeHaan 1988-B).

there was an awareness that development east of I-75 represented a breaking through a barrier as reflected by the following: “But crossing I-75 to the east is like passing over the Continental Divide. Instead of urban areas dotted with homes and businesses, thousands of acres to the east are open for growing farm crops or grazing cattle. That is where the owners of the Schroeder-Manatee Ranch want to see their land changed into huge residential development. Their first effort to win county approval was unsuccessful, but the push is still on” (DeHaan 1988-A, 16).

In 1987 the Manatee County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, based on input from citizens advisory committees, technical advisory committees, and the public at large, chose to establish a “future land use concept” for the 1989 Plan under the 1985/86 Growth Management Act. Agricultural interests having large land holdings pushed for an expanded development area (Interview 11). The Commissions determined that an urban-rural boundary line (similar to the Sarasota County containment line) was appropriate to control the extent of urban development. They delineated a Future Development Area Boundary, ranging from approximately 5 to 9 miles east of I-75 (Manatee County Planning Commission 1987; Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1987-B; and Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1987-C). This line was much farther east and encompassed much more vacant land than the Sarasota County containment line. Under the 1985/86 growth management legislation, comprehensive plans were required to be based on the best available data, including population projections based on professionally acceptable methodologies. A sufficient amount of vacant land and/or otherwise developable land had to be designated for future development in order to meet the projected need (Florida Statutes 1987). In Manatee County, the new comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to the 1985/86 growth management legislation was based on population projections for the year 2010 which showed increased growth east toward and beyond I-75. In 1985, the area east of I-75 was mostly rural and contained approximately 7 % of Manatee County's population. By 2010, it was projected that this area would capture 20% of the County's growth and contain 11% of the 2010 population. Future land uses allowed substantially more growth than the projected demand. The future land uses contemplated for areas east of I-75 had the capacity to accommodate over 120% of the growth for the entire county. The areas immediately west of I-75 were also slated for more

143

rapid growth (Carnegie 1988). Clearly, the new plan was established to accommodate growth far beyond any reasonable projection for growth in Manatee County and most of this growth would be allowed to occur east of the established urban area, including lands east of I-75. Moreover, the planned residential densities were overwhelmingly low densities, allowing a further spreading out of the development pattern rather than accommodating future development in a more compact, moderate to high density pattern. Manatee County Planning Director Carol Clarke retrospectively justified the large area designated for urban development.

Before 1989, I-75 was the approximate boundary for urban development. But, what's important to remember is that everything that was in that agricultural sector (east of the boundary) could be one dwelling unit to one acre of land. That would be sprawl. Rather than allow a series of subdivisions to sprout outside of the growth area, each taking at least an acre per home, the county decided to take two steps that would clear the way for decades of growth within a well-defined area. Unlike neighboring Sarasota County, which still has its Urban Service Area Boundary set at I-75, Manatee County decided to push the line farther east. And, to solidify the boundary into something closer to a barrier, planners set the density for the farm lands outside of the future growth area at one home per five acres. It recognized that the interstate interchanges would be areas of major intensity, and that it made sense to have some development on either side of that area, Clarke said. Growth took place where it was supposed to take place and is overwhelmingly served by public water and sewer. That's a good indicator of its success (Hollister 2000-B).

The general purposes of the 1989 Plan included very general statements regarding the physical environment, general welfare, property rights, economic viability, and planning efficacy. These statements were comparable to similar statements in the Sarasota County plans. Examples include:

- provide fair and equitable consideration of private property rights while ensuring appropriate protection of the (more broadly-defined) public interest as determined by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County; and effect political cooperation and technical coordination by bringing professional and technical knowledge to bear on governmental decisions concerning the physical development of the community (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1998, 1-12)

Goals, objectives, and policies in the 1989 plan pertinent to the issue of urban sprawl included the following:

144

Goal 2.1: Distribute land uses throughout unincorporated Manatee County n a manner consistent with the adopted future land use concept, so as to provide a predictable urban form.

Objective 2.1.1: Geographic Extent of Future Development: Generally limit the location of urban and suburban development occurring in unincorporated Manatee County through 2010 to that area west of the “Future Development Area Boundary” described in the Adopted Land Use Concept Resolutions 87-278 and 87-276, contained as Appendix 2B in the Technical Support Document (TSD) to this Comprehensive Plan.

Objective 2.6.3: Efficient use and provision of public facilities/efficient service delivery: Achieve a pattern of land uses for which public facilities and public services can be provided in a relatively cost-efficient manner.

Policy 2.6.3.1: Limit the potential for urban sprawl by establishing a Future Development Area Boundary limiting urban/suburban development.

2.6.3.2: Provide for most concentrations of future development to occur in currently undeveloped areas which have the greatest level of public facility availability and investment.

Goal: 11.1: Provide and fund the operation of an acceptable regional sanitary sewer system in the north county, southeast, and southwest EPA 201 facilities plan service areas and other areas west of the adopted “future development area boundary” consistent with other public facilities and natural resource constraints.” Policy 11.1.1.7: for projects located outside of the EPA 201 Facilities Service Area shown on map 11A

“Manatee County will not deny a request for wastewater service to a proposed project solely on the basis of the project’s location east of the estimated wastewater service area (shown on Map 11A), but may deny a request for service solely based on location outside the “Future Development Area Boundary” (See Appendix 2B of the Technical Support Document)” (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1989).

High urban densities were not allowed. The highest density allowed was 16 dwelling units per acre, which was limited to areas already exceeding a density of nine dwelling units per acre and areas designated for affordable housing. Moreover, under policy 2.2.1.12.4, special approval was required for development at low densities exceeding 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre (the entire site) or six dwelling units per net acre (the developed portion of the site). This created an additional regulatory barrier, however permeable to moderate density development. An extensive urban fringe category was established via policy 2.2.1.11 and the Future Land Use

145

Map. Areas designated for agricultural and rural uses were allowed a density of one dwelling unit per five areas. Developments that clustered units on a portion of the site and could develop lots at one unit per acre. Additional regulations were established for designated water resource areas, i.e., the Lake Manatee Watershed Overlay District and the Evers Reservoir Watershed Overlay District. The plan was much more specific in terms of rules regarding density and type of use. Yet in most cases, the plan provided for a flexible application of these more specific rules. The Plan reflected a considerable concern with the issue of residential compatibility, in terms of whether new infill development would be compatible with existing development. In some cases compatibility was specifically defined. For example, the Plan discouraged the mixing of attached dwelling units in neighborhoods of detached dwelling units. The Plan continued to require that new growth pay its full share of capital costs and emphasized the continued development of regional water and sewer facilities. Level of service standards for roads were recognized as a potential restriction on development, particularly in rural areas where standards were generally set higher. In order to preclude potential denial of development requests, the Plan allowed a reduction in the transportation level of service standard from C to D if the development resulted in a change in land use character from rural to urban. This policy promoted the conversion of rural to urban uses. Despite the concern with urban sprawl, the term was not defined in the Plan. The resulting Plan was lengthy, technical, legalistic, and complex. It included numerous statements indicating the discouragement of urban sprawl. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) awarded the 1989 Manatee Plan as the best overall comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to the 1985/86 growth management act – despite the over allocation of urban land. The decision to award this distinction was fraught with political peril since so many of the new plans were found “not in-compliance” with the new law. Additionally, the massive review effort by the State overwhelmed reviewers and important issues, such as the huge over allocation of urban land were often overlooked. Nevertheless, it was clear that the local state had been deliberately promoting development toward the east. In 1990 the Bradenton Herald reported the following:

Manatee commissioners and their planners for years have steered most growth near Interstate 75, a six-lane divided highway that opened in Manatee County in 1981. They turned that practice into a formal policy last year when

146

commissioners revised the county’s comprehensive plan to comply with planning requirements in the state’s growth management law. Commissioners designated dense housing and commercial development for more than 2,300 acres hugging the east side of I-75, from just north of State Road 64 south to University Parkway at the Manatee County-Sarasota County border” (Mason 1990). 1990s

A review of opinions expressed during the 1990’s reflects a variety of ideological issues: Inevitability of development:

The look of eastern Manatee will depend on how many new residents continue to move to the county, said Steve Logan, assistant county administrator for strategic growth management. “The market place will determine how intensely it is developed out there,” Logan said. “If there’s no market, it won’t happen. The largest obstacle facing developers in eastern Manatee is the scarcity of major water and sewer lines and other county services. Logan said. Developers and new residents will provide some money through special one-time taxes to help cover the cost of installing new water lines and other improvements to county services. Count taxpayers might have to foot the rest of the bill through higher water and sewer rates and higher taxes. Logan said the special taxes paid by developers and new residents are supposed to cover 100 % of the costs of growth for residential developments. He said the county is attempting to verify whether the impact fees actually cover 100 percent (Allard 1990, 20).

… I-75's so-called "Golden Corridor." All along the I-75 corridor, and this is true for the entire Tampa Bay area, is where the action is going to be, said Craig Starner, economic analyst for Manatee County. Bradenton will just become part of one big metropolitan area. I think some people don't like to hear that, but I think it's going to happen. It's just going to take a few years, Starner said (Cox 1995).

Question of Sprawl:

Jerome Gostkowski, Manatee County's growth management administrator, said some may think sprawl is approving development on vacant land that is surrounded by other rural-looking lands that already are slated for development. He doesn't agree….Much of the land around I-75 and University Parkway was approved for development before the two roads became major growth facilitators, so the new subdivisions there don't create urban sprawl, he said. …And in the north part of the county where much growth speculation is taking place, sewer and road systems are already in place, so that doesn't fit his definition of "leap frog" development either….To me, the idea of sprawl means outstripping your ability to serve an area, but we have the ability to serve in Manatee County, Gostkowski said (Clark 1995).

A local environmental organization, Manasota-88 had a different view:

147

As noted in the Carrying Capacity Network, although “in growth we trust” may well be the unofficial guiding principle of most political leaders, for the vast majority of ordinary Americans it is the “costs of growth” that continue to be the reality evident in the higher taxes, overcrowding, and environmental degradation that inevitably result. While maximizing economic growth is still promoted as the solution to all problems, more and more people are examining the hidden costs and accompanying taxpayers subsidies. We recognize that most of the benefits accrue to a few special interests. We realize that in the long run growth never pays for itself. All across America people are rejecting the assumption that any and all growth is good and questioning whether a new road or highway, strip mall, or tax subsidized factory is really in the community’s long-term best interest. There is also a growing awareness that simply managing or mitigating the effects of growth are not solutions (Manasota-88 1996).

A number of the largest landowners in Manatee County were linked to capital interests outside of the county. These included: The First Florida Bank which controlled over 36,000 acres; Schroeder Manatee Inc which controlled over 21,000 acres in Manatee County and an additional 7,000 acres in Sarasota County. This company, which began agricultural and mining operations 75 years earlier, is connected to a number of out-of-state interests. The president of SMR Communities, Roger Postlethwaite was also president of Taylor Woodrow Homes, a developer in Sarasota County and connected to Taylor Woodrow, one of the developers of the tunnel under the English Channel; BB/Manatee Associates which has controlled from 8,000 to 52,000 acres is a partnership including out-of-county developers; and Hecht Properties which controlled over 7,000 acres and has holdings in Dade, Broward, Lee, Charlotte, and Marion counties (Vaughn 1991).

Manatee County Plan 1998

During the 1990’s and consistent with the Plan, the county approved the development of thousands of dwelling units east of I-75 (Cox 1995; Langenberg 1998; Horan 1999). Various individuals as well as some public officials criticized this eastward expansion as urban sprawl, citing infrastructure costs, loss of agricultural lands, and loss of wildlife habitat (Langenberg 1998). Development proponents cited the inevitability of this type of development in the face of market imperatives.

- The long-term reality is that building is going east (Horan 1999).

148

- I don’t like urban sprawl, but I see a demand in the marketplace for suburban homes on one to five acres. The request is consistent with our land development code. I think we’d be out of line not to (approve it) said Williams, a Manatee County Planning Commissioner (Langenberg 1998).

- Betsy Benac, a land use planner presenting plans to build 301 homes and shops on 944 acres east of Parish said, This is a trend. People must be willing to live with that … because development always occurs according to the market. The trend is to move out this way (Langenberg 1998).

In some instances, it was argued that development was preferable to maintaining agricultural, rural, or natural landscapes. One example of this is the Wading Bird Golf and Country Club, which would convert agricultural lands with houses, a golf course, and river docks. Developers stated that the project would “improve drainage, attract wildlife and restore the historic flow of the river” (White 1998). Similarly, Panther Ridge, a 1920’s era rural subdivision consisting of 5-acre lots was not developing, i.e., it was not meeting market demands. The county allowed it to reconfigure its plat, allowing for clustering to smaller lots and preservation of open space. One Planning Commissioner stated, “I’m usually skeptical about seeing anything this far out (east) except ranches and farms. But I’ll support this.” Another Planning Commissioner, a noted advocate of growth management stated, “I must admit this looks very good” (White 1998). The rationalization of conversion of agricultural lands was that agriculture often destroyed environmental attributes and was not subject to the same environmental controls as development. Thus, through the process of development, whatever environmental attributes that remained could be enhanced. The rationalization of the reconfiguration of 5-acre lot subdivisions was that through clustering, open spaces could also be used to preserve and enhance environmental attributes. Thus, development was portrayed in a positive light. In 1998/9, the Manatee Plan underwent another major revision. Via public hearings, many

citizens have communicated concerns regarding urban sprawl. These have included discussion on: infrastructure costs, premature conversion of agricultural land, sufficient potable water needs, school needs, recreational opportunities, maintaining solid tax base, commercial sprawl (Manatee County Board of County Commissioners 1998).

149

Some of the more pertinent changes with regard to the subject of urban sprawl follow with discourse comments in brackets:

Goal 2.1 modified to more explicitly address urban sprawl: “A distribution of land uses throughout unincorporated Manatee County which limit urban sprawl, providing a predictable and functional urban form, allowing public facilities and services to be provided in a relatively cost efficient manner.”

New Objective 2.1.1 Mapping Methodology for the Future Land Use Map: Follow a mapping methodology limiting urban sprawl which recognizes existing development; projected growth areas; projected population and employment growth; and a possible development density and intensity less than the maximum specified on the Future Land Use Map. (See also all policies under Objective 2.6.1)

New Policy 2.1.1.1: Maintain the Future Land Use Map with reserve capacity to accommodate the projected population and employment base through 2020. [This policy extended the date from 2010 to 2020.]

Objective 2.1.2: Geographic Extent of Future Development: Limit urban sprawl through provision of locations for new residential and non-residential development consistent with the adopted Land Use Concept, to that area west of the Future Development Area Boundary (FDAB) thereby, preserving agriculture as the primary land use east of the FDAB through 2020.

New Policy 2.1.1.3: Designate on the Future Land Use Map, land within currently undeveloped growth areas at densities and intensities which permit significant increases over current land use designations without creating urban sprawl. [This appears to be an attempt to make the policy seem benign]

New Policy 2.1.2.4: Limit urban sprawl through the consideration of new development, when deemed compatible with existing and future development, in areas which are internal to, or are contiguous expansions of the built environment.” [It is not clear that this policy accomplishes anything more than being another policy purporting to address the issue of sprawl.]

NEW POLICY 2.1.2.6: Limit urban sprawl through consideration of new development, when deemed compatible with future growth, in areas which are currently undeveloped yet suitable for improvements.”

Policy 2.2.1.11: [re: UF-3: Urban Fringe-3] “Intent: to identify, textually, in the comprehensive plan’s goals, objectives, and policies, or graphically on the Future Land Use Map, areas limited to the urban fringe within which future growth and growth beyond the long term planning period is projected at the appropriate time in a responsible manner. The development of these lands shall follow a logical

150

expansion of the urban environment, typically growing from the west to the east, consistent with the availability of services. At a minimum, the nature, extent, location of development, and availability of services will be reviewed to ensure the transitioning of these lands is conducted consistent with the intent of this policy. These UF-3 areas are those which are established for a low density urban, or clustered low-moderate density urban, residential environment, generally developed through the Planning Unit Development Concept. Also, to provide for a complement of residential support uses normally utilized during the daily activities of residents of these low or low-moderate density urban environments.” “The UF-3 future land use category was identified as being over allocated based on land use needs for projected population. To mitigate the over allocation, language has been added to recognize the County’s long-standing position that the allocation of UF-3 lands goes well beyond the standard 20 year time frame required by the GMA. [In other words the over allocation is allowed to continue!]

New Policy 2.9.3.2: Allow for the redevelopment of existing non-conforming sub-divisions within the Ag/R future land use category when consistent with all Comprehensive Plan provisions, except for density. Density shall not exceed the maximum allowed based on provisions contained within the Land Development Code and this Comprehensive Plan.” Page 385, explanation: “New policy lays the framework upon which to allow the non-conforming plats in the Agricultural Rural future land use category to move closer into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.” [Does it also enable redevelopment to meet current market demands? What happens if this policy not in effect, why was this policy adopted?]

In sum, the institutionalized planning process in Manatee County continues to promote development while providing symbolic language to address the issue of urban sprawl. The evaluation of Manatee County officials is that the plan is good and development is good. The planned distribution of residential development is shown in Figure 19.

151

Figure 19: Manatee Planned Residential Distribution (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1998)

152

CHAPTER 5

EXPLANATION AND CONCLUSIONS

The approach used here to explain the role of the local-state in the production of urban sprawl uses a realist methodology that is necessarily iterative and recursive. It is intrinsically bound to a production of space model via a chronological and geographical description of the objects and realist-structures, and the situated flow of intentions and actions (powers and mechanisms); outcomes (intended and unintended), and future effects (acknowledged and unacknowledged).

Growth and Urban Sprawl

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the role of the local state in encouraging and discouraging urban sprawl. However, the extensive urban sprawl development patterns witnessed here could not have occurred without rapid population growth. Population growth is a necessary pre- and continuing-condition for the production of urban sprawl. The structuration process that produces population growth is a subset of the structuration process that produces urban sprawl. Therefore, a brief discussion of the causes of population growth as it has occurred in Sarasota and Manatee counties provides a foundation and prologue for subsequent explanations of how objects and realist-structures have contingent and necessary relationships, and powers and liabilities that combine to produce the intended and unintended outcome of urban sprawl. Population growth is associated with an increase in businesses and material objects of the built environment, including dwelling units, other structures for working, shopping, civic

153

activities, et cetera, and public infrastructure including roads and various public utilities. It is nominally caused by natural increase and net immigration into an area. The dramatic increase in population and development in Sarasota and Manatee counties over the last 50 years was the result of thousands of individuals and households choosing to move from other places, primarily northern states. It was also the result of the actions of real estate-capital interests who sought a profit from such a migration, including large real estate and financial firms seeking profit from secondary circuits of capital (Gottdiener 1994, 272, Harvey 1982). The redistribution of the population within Florida and specifically into Sarasota and Manatee counties represented a change in spatial form on a national scale, irrespective of the local spatial pattern of population. People who migrate to Sarasota and Manatee counties constitute concrete objects. Each individual and business incorporates unique attributes or aspects. Aspects of individual include age, gender, race, knowledge, skills, values, wealth, household status (e.g. single, married, and married with children) and personal reasons for housing choice (e.g., location, size, density, amenities). Aspects of business include type, size, and links to the local economy. Sayer (1984, 88) states that “abstractions should distinguish incidental from essential characteristics.” The rational abstraction of these concrete objects focuses on the relationships between their various aspects and the processes of interest here, namely urban growth and urban sprawl. Important relationships will include substantial connections and interactions instead of simply formal relations of similarity or dissimilarity. The question of whether the relation is contingent or necessary is important, particularly in the conceptualization of realist-structures (Sayer 1984, 88- 97). The relationship between population growth and urban form is historically contingent. Population growth and urban forms such as sprawl are events or outcomes caused by objects and realist structures. Population growth per se does not cause sprawl. Cities can and have had population growth with a compact pattern of development. Population growth constitutes a change in the composition of the Sarasota and Manatee county locales. It brings an increase in the number, type, and diversity of objects and realist- structures present in the locales as well as linkages to objects and social structures that have a wider geographic extension and scale. Population growth includes an increase in consumers,

154

workers, and developers of all types. It provides an increase in the "co-presence" of agents necessary for the production of an expanding urban landscape. Although it is clear that only people create population growth and sprawl, the physical geography is relevant for two reasons. First, development occurs in a particular space with a particular physical geography. Second, people conceptualize and use the physical geography in particular ways. Sayer (1992, 28) notes that “Social phenomena have a crucial material dimension and are closely associated everywhere to relationships with nature, both in its virgin and its artificially transformed states.” The physiography, ecosystems, and climate of Sarasota and Manatee counties are material objects in space. They also constitute the material aspects of realist-structures under realism. It is possible to abstract the relevant aspects of these objects and examine the relationships (contingent and necessary) between these material objects and other objects (agents, systems, structures). The physical environment contains the "raw materials" that are necessary for development to occur. Urban development cannot occur without sufficient land, water, etc. These obvious statements make the important point that material objects, such as land and water, have both powers and liabilities that enable and constrain development. The process of development requires land, developers to build, and people to dwell. Some relationships are necessary. Developers need land to build and people to consume the built environment. Prospective consumers need a place to live and work, i.e., a built environment. However, land (or any aspect of the physical geography) does not require either developers or occupants, so the relationship between developers and people with the land is asymmetric. As a material object, land itself has certain characteristics that are considered natural attributes. These include relative location, amount, topography, etc. Through the development process, land is re-conceptualized into real estate having characteristics relevant to the purpose of development. Our shared understanding of the land, now defined as real estate or private property with use and exchange values, has changed. The actual development and subsequent consumption (occupancy) of specific lands (outcome/event) is a contingent matter. There is no requirement that the land in Sarasota and Manatee counties be identified as real estate and developed. The development and use of the land in Sarasota and Manatee counties is a contingent occurrence.

155

The particular material characteristics of land as they may be linked to particular rules of legitimation become important to the land’s development and occupancy. In the case of Sarasota and Manatee counties, the particular characteristics of the location, physiography, ecosystems, and climate are important because of how they are conceptualized and valued by people (residents, prospective migrants, land owners, speculators, developers), and incorporated into systems (e.g., regularized practices of the local-state and development industry). The location of Sarasota and Manatee counties in central, coastal Florida identifies them as sub-locales of the broader Florida locale. Florida’s warm and sunny winters, sandy beaches, rivers, bays, and other abundant resources are highly valued. Florida was (and is) widely viewed and marketed as a natural, sub-tropical paradise (O’Sullivan and Lane 1991). Sarasota and Manatee counties are not located at the epicenters of the Florida growth phenomena, i.e., Miami/southeast Florida, Orlando, and Tampa. Nevertheless, their proximity to rapid growth areas, similar climate, and coastal amenities allow them to be marketed as part of the “Florida paradise.” That is, they can be included as part of what could be called the Florida growth and development realist structure, a complex web of structures, agents, systems, and material objects that are necessarily related in the production of Florida’s rapid population growth. The valuing of Florida's physical environment is a rule of legitimation. The high value of a sandy beach or a warm winter is implicitly acknowledged. "Florida" is a concept that conveys images of a sub-tropical paradise. This conceptualization or representation of Florida as a unique place is "common sense" and as such, hardly worth mentioning. However, this valuing of the resources in Sarasota and Manatee counties is neither natural nor unavoidable, but a historically (re-)produced cultural truth or structure. The belief that Florida is a desirable place to live is a powerful force that underlies the conceptualization and actual use of the physical environment in Sarasota and Manatee counties. By migrating to Florida, people affirm and reproduce the rule that provided the rationale for the move. Recent migrants and residents often tell others that Florida is a nice place and induce others to move to Florida. The rule is the medium and outcome of our action. People cannot move to Florida unless real estate is made available for sale and rent. Landowners, who may also be farmers, speculators, developers, or builders, must choose to exchange their rights in the land to others. Many structures, rules of legitimation and

156

signification, and resources are implicated in their choice to market and sell their lands. The state enables this process in a variety of ways, including the protection of private property rights and through promotional marketing of Florida and specific locales such as Sarasota and Manatee counties. These rules of legitimation do not “cause” everyone to move to Florida or to Sarasota and Manatee counties. The saying “If you build it they will come” is not true. The history of failed development endeavors from scarred platted lands from the 1920’s to failed mega developments of the 1970’s testifies to the fact that growth and development is not a foregone conclusion. The contingent nature of Florida development becomes clear by considering earlier historical periods. Prior to the mid-20th century, the land and water was initially developed only to a limited degree due to natural and spatial constraints. For example, a significant portion of the land was wetlands and floodplains. Prior to fairly recent environmental understandings (“new” rules of legitimation), wetlands, floodplains and other environmentally significant lands, such as rare ecosystems were not highly valued for their positive intrinsic qualities, e.g., water purification, water storage, flood attenuation, and species diversity (Fernald and Purdum 1998; Gannon 1996; Odum, Odum, and Brown 1998). Wetlands were often given pejorative names such as swamps and considered wastelands because they offered no perceived benefits and harbored mosquitoes, alligators, and even hostile Seminoles (in the early 1800’s). The evoked meanings were rules of legitimation. Loathing of mosquitoes and hot-humid summers represented the liabilities of the natural features of Sarasota and Manatee counties. Additionally, the physical remoteness from northern population centers and lack of convenient and affordable transportation access constituted a spatial separation that constrained the operation of those objects, systems, and structures. In this instance, the valuing of the natural environment changed along with other objects, e.g., technology. This enabled the emergence of new powers and liabilities of various objects. Sayer (1984, 107) notes that “The relationship between causal powers or mechanisms and their effects is therefore not fixed, but contingent; indeed causal powers exist independently of their effects, unless they derive from social structures whose reproduction depends on particular effects resulting.” Once economic and technological resources were available to exploit the natural environment, physical constraints to development were either eliminated or otherwise

157

discounted. The draining of wetlands, converting them to buildable lands, and the concurrent creation of canals and lakes, was viewed as appropriate by the State of Florida and its local governments, especially within the hegemonic "growth is good" ideology. The transformed water features had positive cultural values because they created water amenities, such as waterfront lots and boat access. The “negative” valuation of wetlands to be destroyed and converted into marketable real estate to support development was privileged over the capacities related to water and wildlife resources. Other constraints were overcome by technological advances, including mosquito control, air-conditioning, and advances in air travel, as well as the spatial extension of highways funded in large measure by the federal government. These new technologies did not determine population growth, that is, make it inevitable. Rather, these new objects were developed and applied to Florida by both capital and state entities via a complex interaction of other objects, systems, and structures. People as individual agents and as part of systems (state and capital organizations and institutions) chose to direct these enabling technologies to Florida in order to accomplish various goals, including state legitimization and capital profit. Similarly, the conceptualization of hurricane vulnerability was limited, and lands which we now believe to be vulnerable to hurricane storm surge and other hazards, were valued for other characteristics such as "beach front" and "river view." Today, notwithstanding our scientific knowledge of hurricane vulnerability, coastal areas continue to attract people although the state has made some effort to restrict development, e.g. coastal construction control lines; identification, publication, and application of hurricane evacuation zones; and limits to new high density development in the most vulnerable areas (Florida Statutes 2002). Rules of signification also enabled the development of Sarasota and Manatee counties. Language and other accepted rules for communicating meaning in our culture provided the means to signify and visualize the desirable landscapes and the potential for profit, employment, and pleasant living in Sarasota and Manatee counties. Advertising and marketing schemes via modes such as newspapers, magazines, radio, telephone, television, and the Internet, including "boiler room" operations were and are accepted as providing the "truth" about Florida development and living opportunities. Prospective consumers purchased land and moved to Florida based on advertising claims and "word-of-mouth." Pictures of palm trees, white sandy beaches, young women in swim suits, sunsets over the bay, and lush orange groves as well as

158

images of the built environment such as marinas with colorful sailboats, suburban landscapes with green lawns and swimming pools, and maps and diagrams showing golf course communities, sometimes with photographs of retirees putting on the greens, all evoked images of carefree living. The semantic rule that we could “believe” in the various representations of space as valid portrayals of life in Sarasota and Manatee counties enabled population growth. These rules of signification were applied to varying degrees by agents of capital and civil society. Some agents of capital misrepresented the advantages and disadvantages of working and living in Florida. Many out-of-state consumers accepted the marketing ploys and bought land in Florida. There were unintended consequences, including lost fortunes, bankruptcies, and eventually state intervention (Dodrill 1993). The State played a significant role in the growth of Florida through the application of state resources of allocation and authorization. In the 1800’s, after Florida achieved statehood, the federal government utilized its resources of authorization to transfer control of vast land areas to State ownership. The State of Florida, utilized its powers of authorization and allocation to encourage growth. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, these included land transfers to various capital interests for the construction of railroads and draining of swamps. Later, State organization became directly involved in the building of water systems to drain swamps and roads to improve access (Blake 1980; Gannon 1996). The county’s political control over the vast majority of land area in each locale, compared to the municipalities, enabled the counties to have a dominating influence the nature and extent of growth and development. Although state laws appear to privilege the role of municipalities in the control of urban development in contrast with other states like California (Nelson and Duncan 1995), municipalities have not acted consistently to annex urbanizing land and take political control. Thus in many instances, including the cases of Sarasota and Manatee Counties, the counties have retained political control of rural lands as they have urbanized. The most significant state actions in Manatee and Sarasota counties were the construction of U.S. highways 41 and 301, and later the construction of Interstate 75, miles east of the existing urban areas. The construction of the Evers Reservoir, and other supporting infrastructure was also essential to supporting growth and particular patterns of growth. Rules that legitimized both state and capital actions to encourage growth included the basic ideals and goals of capitalism as well as the important concept of property rights. The

159

frontier ideology of property rights whereby the use of property was at the discretion of the current owner alone and not subject to broader societal constraints was paramount. Conversely, state regulation of property, i.e., the limiting of property rights to achieve certain public purposes via state institutions including the legal system, has a long history in the United States. Zoning and land use planning, as well as regulation of land sales, are the primary examples of how the state sought to regulate growth and development. In 1916, New York City adopted the first comprehensive zoning ordinance and the United States Department of Commerce developed the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, to guide state efforts in 1922 (Pelham 1979). The landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to validate zoning as an exercise of police power of a municipality (a local state) occurred in 1926 in the case of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co (Pelham 1979). Zoning in Florida began during this period of time within the limited framework of controlling nuisances and was quickly implemented by some of the larger and faster growing areas such as Jacksonville and Miami. In general, zoning as an application of police power must be based upon the protection of a community's public health, safety, morals and general welfare. However, the Standard City Planning Enabling Act of 1928 and some courts proposed comprehensive planning as a necessary precedent to zoning to the extent that the planning was based on population, economic and land use studies and forecasts whereas zoning was more of a piecemeal approach. The plan could and should provide the basis for an objective and fair evaluation of land uses that might promote or threaten the general health, safety, morals and welfare of a community. To this extent, planning was based on "a consuming belief in the progressive growth of a Western civilization that had created scientific methods for rational planning and problems solving" (Brown 1994: 1-11). This was another important rule of legitimation. Despite this, hundreds of zoning ordinances across the country were adopted without the foundation or direction of a comprehensive plan. The State of Florida adopted an act to enable local zoning in 1940 but did not have effective planning laws prior to the 1960's (Pelham 1979). In fact, it did not significantly address even the sale of land until the 1960’s. This allowed many unscrupulous businesses to market land nationally without informing buyers of the true nature of the land they were buying. This led to the sale and purchase of tens of thousands of lots with severe building constraints, e.g. wetlands. The large scale subdivision of land into small parcels and the purchase of these

160

parcels created a landscape of future claims to development, i.e., latent property rights that would become difficult address by subsequent land use planning. Effective laws that addressed the subdivision, marketing and sales of land were not in place until the late 1960's (Dodrill 1993). Similarly, until the late 1950's, neither Sarasota or Manatee counties had zoning and the prospect for effective land use planning would not appear until the 1970's. In structuration terminology, new rules of legitimation (manifested by zoning and planning) and new resources of authorization (manifested by creation of laws and their affirmation by the court system) spread to Florida. This is an example of Gidden’s (1984) concept of time-space distanciation, whereby systems, that is regularized social practices, extend or stretch from one place to another via mechanisms of social and system integration. However, these rules were modified and adapted to the particular political-economic-cultural systems in Florida and in its various locales. Thus, the application of zoning and planning across Florida was far from uniform in timing and effect. The 1950's saw the beginnings of an environmental movement that eventually became a powerful political force by the 1970's. The environmental ideology provided a counterpoint to the "assumed goodness of growth that characterized public and private attitudes throughout most of our history" (DeGrove 1984: 3). This ideology and a growing interest in rational planning was manifested in additional state systems, including the United States Housing Acts of 1949, 1954 and 1962 that mandated planning as a condition for federal funding for housing or highway projects and that established the Comprehensive Planning Assistance Grant Program, Section 701 (Brown 1994; DeGrove 1984). These constituted resources of authorization and allocation. In 1972, the State of Florida adopted the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act based on a Model Land Development Code in development by the American Law Institute (Pelham 1979). The specific focus was on state regulation of developments having regional impacts and planning for critical areas (e.g. multiple jurisdictions sharing environmental resources). This was followed in 1975 by the State Land Planning Act, which authorized the creation of comprehensive plans by all municipalities and counties in the State. There were numerous other enabling factors that drove population growth in Florida, including Manatee and Sarasota counties. These included free-market capitalism; an expanding national economy that provided the financial resources for developers to develop and migrants to consume; an expanding development industry; favorable taxes (no personal income or estate

161

Florida Growth and Development Realist Structure Scale Actions of Federal and State Organizations Space Distance and Accessibility State Capital Civil Society Resident/ Agent Politician Bureaucrat Businessman Developer Migrant

Property Growth is Capital Wealth / Florida as Rights Good Growth Profit Paradise Structures Rational Planning Environmental Values Encourage Politics Planning Marketing Selling Others

Business in Systems Legislating Regulating Developing Residing General

SDMO Infrastructure Plans Technology Real Estate Suburbia

MO Water Land Climate … Extra-Local Political/Economic/Cultural Events and Forces

Figure 20: Florida Growth and Development Realist Structure

162

Florida Growth and Development Realist Structure Consequences and Future Conditions Global-Local-Personal Scale Interactions

Spatial Form Rapid Population Growth

Environmental Degradation STATE / CAPITAL / CIVIL SOCIETY Population Migration Development Industry Business (Re-)location Success and Profit AGA AGB AGC Marketing, Selling, Buying, Achievement of American Developing Land Dream STD STE STF Enabling Broad Property Unique Mode of Regulation Rights and Actions and Regime of Accumulation SYG SYH SYI via Development Industry Growth Promotion and State Systems (Jessop 1990) SDMOJ SDMOK SDMOL

MOM MON MOO

Figure 21 : Development Model

163

taxes, low property taxes); cheap land; and the American dream of homeownership. These enabling factors were geographically/historically contingent, but nevertheless extremely important factors. However, to the extent that they were not factors directly associated with the local-state, they will be considered “background” factors, i.e. part of the larger social systems that interacted with the locales in question and not a primary subject of this dissertation. Figures 18 and 19 use the proposed model to illustrate the structuration-realist concepts expressed above. The sheer number of agents (AG), structures (ST), systems (SY), socially defined material objects (SDMO), and material objects (MO) that combine into objects and realist-structures precludes including all on the diagram. Thus, the diagram is for illustrative purposes.

Sarasota and Manatee

1940 - 1969

Population growth and all its attendant manifestations, e.g. development of the natural landscape into a built environment of houses, stores, and roads, etc. continued rapidly during this period of time. Prior to the 1960’s, the local state did not act to restrict urban sprawl. Sprawling, low density development occurred throughout both counties with no significant recognition by the local-state or civil society that sprawl was an undesirable development pattern. On the contrary, urban sprawl as manifested by low-density residential development was embraced without question. However, the rapid conversion of the pristine environment had a number of unintended effects. First, many small investors/consumers were distressed to find that the promised paradise was not all that was imagined. Many people lost money and/or were otherwise disappointed by their investments in the speculative development schemes (Dodrill 1993). Second, increasingly noticeable impacts to the natural environment and a growing environmental ideology caused many to question the assumed goodness of growth. Third, the alteration of the natural environment by agricultural activities and premature land clearing antecedent to speculative development destroyed environmental resources (e.g. draining of wetlands) that might have constrained urban development in future years under a more environmental protective regulatory system. Fourth, the actual development of the county in a low-density, sprawl pattern created a

164

template for further development. Low-density sprawl subdivisions were both marketable and profitable and thus constituted good business. This was part of a broader regime of accumulation. Fifth, extensive subdivision, platting, and selling of small parcels (without immediate development or construction) begin to create a latent and veiled development pattern that was not visible on the physical landscape but consequential to the legal, political, and development landscapes. Sixth, the economic effects of urban sprawl in terms of increased development costs, i.e., lower-efficiency, and the subsidy of new sprawl development by existing development via local-state infrastructure expenditures, i.e., equity and fairness, were eventually recognized. Development prior to 1960 formed acknowledged and unacknowledged conditions for future actions with regard to both development and the regulation of development. The settings of interaction had been changed. Development patterns had been initiated, natural resources had been altered and degraded, development processes and systems had been applied and critiqued, population had grown, and ideologies had been challenged with questions being raised regarding the advantages and disadvantages of growth. By the 1960’s, both counties had implemented zoning to regulate land uses, but there is no evidence that such activities addressed the issue of urban sprawl. However, local government zoning reflected awareness that growth and development had negative as well as positive impacts, and that local government had a legitimate, albeit limited role in controlling development. Growth management or control was not yet considered an appropriate role by either local government. During the 1960’s, the State of Florida was actively expanding the legal system in ways that enabled local-states, i.e. municipalities and counties, to improve regulation of development. In 1968 the State of Florida authorized land use planning. Some of the State’s actions were encouraged/enabled by various federal initiatives (e.g., Federal Housing Acts and Planning Assistance Grants). These federal and State actions may be collectively conceptualized as the extension of power, institutions, and ideologies across space-time, i.e. time-space distanciation (Giddens 1984). Throughout the 1960’s, the collection and analysis of land use data by the counties represented the incremental development of regularized planning practices (social practices/systems). Further, it was recognized that such data had value, although use of the data

165

was initially limited to "informational purposes." The data and maps (including zoning maps) constituted new ways to conceive of the natural and developing landscapes. They constituted new representations of space, i.e., new ways of knowing, understanding, and communicating the meaning of different landscapes. This included existing landscapes as well as future landscape imagined by those writing, drawing, and reading the data, maps, and zoning regulations. The types and styles of planning and zoning data, analysis, maps, and regulations (actions and events) were enabled and constrained by rules and resources, which were the medium and outcome of these actions. Over time and space (planning and zoning originated in other parts of the United States and spread to Florida) rules of signification and legitimation changed and recursively structured action. The County Commissions as well as the staff chose to accept, and thus reproduce some of these ideas from outside of the county.

1969

The 1960’s culminated with two events of note. First, growth and development of the landscape in a sprawling pattern continued. The local-state took no significant actions to discourage such development. Second, in 1969, Sarasota County planners wrote the first plan in either county which identified sprawl as problem and proposed ways to discourage sprawl. The 1969 Plan reflected a planning ideology with the following elements: planning is good; planning should be flexible and general, rather than rigid and specific; planning can effectively address community needs; and planning is based on professional/technical analysis and political issues. With regard to urban sprawl, the following ideas were expressed: urban sprawl is bad and results in costs to the community; urban development should not be left to the market; and urban sprawl can and should be contained. The 1969 Plan was a product of objects and realist structures in the Sarasota locale. The rhetoric of the Plan reflected the acceptance of planning as a tool address community needs and the identification of urban sprawl as a community problem. In other words, the Plan reflected evolving rules of legitimation regarding planning and sprawl. Further, the Plan reflected a counterpoint to the prevailing growth-is-good ideology. However, the strong rhetoric masked the fact that the actual policies of the Plan including the designation of a remote and inconsequential containment line, were ineffective in controlling sprawl. The failure of the Plan to be officially adopted further emphasized the unwillingness of

166

the local-state to control urban sprawl, possibly due to contrary forces within capital and civil society. The local-state planning system as well as the governing officials and planners were quite limited in power, not to mention resolve, to direct or manage growth. In other words, resources of authorization were weak as were the complementary rules of legitimation. Meanwhile, capital interests continued to pursue the development of the County without regard for the pattern of development, except to the extent that profit was maximized. Civil society, while developing an increasing awareness of a declining quality of life, continued to purchase and live in developments that were increasingly scattered about the county, far from the existing urban centers of Sarasota and Venice.

1970s

Sarasota County chose to draw upon extra-local objects (outside consultants) to develop the 1971 Plan. These agents and systems were guided by local rules of legitimation as well as extra-local rules of legitimation that extended into the county from wider geographic scales. These extra-local rules included an emerging planning ideology brought to Sarasota County (and State government) by outside planning consultants/agents; and extra-local capital/development interests. The Plan demonstrated an engagement with existing spatial form, designating future uses in part based on existing conditions but in an inconsistent fashion. Spatial form did not determine the Plan, but was an influencing factor. The 1971 Plan reflected the beliefs that policies of the local-state, based on overall community values, could be effective in managing growth and controlling sprawl. The Plan’s descriptions of sprawl and its negative costs were clearly stated. However, the Plan policies themselves were internally inconsistent. Some policies directed growth into compact patterns while other policies continued to allow growth practically anywhere. The idea of urban containment, introduced in the unadopted 1969 Plan, was formalized. The containment line was established at the expected location of the future I-75 corridor. The containment line encompassed an area so large that it did not meaningfully restrict growth. Also the containment line itself was porous and low-density sprawl development was allowed beyond the line. Nevertheless, the action of locating a containment line is significant. This was a

167

purposive action on the part of the local-state to directly control urban spatial form. This action would impact the pattern of urban development, in both unintended and intended ways. The importance of water and sewer facilities and services were recognized in numerous studies and plans. The 1971 Plan included an implementation strategy to guide urban growth by strategically providing/ withholding water and sewer facilities. However, Sarasota County acted slowly to implement these plans to take control via the creation of regional water/sewer systems and thereby use such systems to manage growth. Instead, a scattered and uncoordinated collection of small systems continued to flourish, supporting a scattered, low-density development pattern. The internally inconsistent policies, the oversized urban containment area, the expansion of future urban designations west of the containment line, and the porosity of the containment boundary line were seemingly at odds with the strong anti-sprawl rhetoric of the plan. However, these actions were consistent with other unacknowledged conditions framing the development of the plan. These included the fact that low density sprawl subdivisions were both marketable and profitable and thus constituted good business. The low-density pattern was the accepted default approach for development success. As the common development pattern, low-density residential development was accepted by portions of civil society that viewed suburbia, with its backyards – green with grass over the septic tanks – as a desirable lifestyle choice. At a deeper level, although an urban sprawl pattern was evident in the built landscape, the as-yet unbuilt landscape was being modified by legal instruments and the creation of property rights and future development expectations. Extensive subdivision, platting, and the selling of small parcels created a latent and veiled development pattern that was not yet visible on the physical landscape but nevertheless consequential. This was a pattern of perceived future exchange and use values that affected development and planning actions. In sum, all of the above had a particular spatial arrangement, contingently produced but nevertheless having particular powers and liabilities. The containment boundary line, other plan policies, the built environment, the un-built environment of property rights and expectations, and current and potential exchange and use values, and the idea and manifestations of urban sprawl were linked to other objects including landowners, speculators, developers, builders, planners, environmentalists, home owners and buyers, elected officials, routine development practices, and other objects in the spheres of state, capital, and civil society in forming a complex web of contingent and necessary relationships and

168

in turn realist-structures. The power of the existing urban pattern (in all its facets) to react back upon social systems and structures was enabled by the meanings imbued upon the pattern. In other words, concept dependent/socially defined material objects as well as the concept dependent urban form (i.e. the pejorative conceptualization of urban sprawl and the favorable conceptualization of low-density suburbia) were linked to rules, resources, social practices, people, and organizational elements of state, capital, and civil society. The particular spatial pattern, as a contingent product; collection of objects and realist-structures; and conceived space/representations of space, reflected back on the social systems. The 1969 and 1971 Plans, although ineffective in addressing the issue of sprawl, reflected a community concerned with the impacts of growth and urban sprawl. The ineffectiveness and internal contradictions of the Plans could be interpreted in different ways, for example: 1. The professional planners miscalculated and their purposive actions to discourage sprawl resulted in unintended consequences and/or 2. The Plans reflected Sarasota County's attempt to legitimate the issue of urban sprawl and satisfy the vocal concerns of civil society while bending to capital interests by adopting symbolic rather than meaningful regulation and/or 3. The Plans reflected the political power and technical knowledge of capital interests to influence the Plans in ways that would not threaten continued growth and/or 4. The planning process, as a social-political process, was influenced by the urban spatial pattern – built and unbuilt, physical and legal – which reflected a complex mix of real and speculative exchange and use values. Manatee County was subject to the same global structures as Sarasota County. However, Manatee County chose to first delay action on land use/growth management planning and second to fashion a somewhat different planning approach. The rhetoric of the first Manatee Plan closely paralleled that of Sarasota County, although in some ways it was much more raw, intimate, and audacious with regard to its representations of the future of the county. Urban sprawl and uncontrolled growth was an evil that could turn Manatee County into a “gargantuan slum rimming lower Tampa Bay,” yet Manatee County was also on the verge of its “great growth cycle” (Manatee County Planning and Development Department 1973). The 1973 Manatee County Plan reflected local beliefs that were distinctively different from Sarasota County. For example: Growth and development eastward is “logical and natural”

169

and should not be artificially prohibited by land use controls, i.e. a “Chinese Wall,” i.e. a mechanism to stop people from moving to Manatee County. The purpose is to plan for the future, not deny the future. A greater emphasis on the principal that growth and development can and should be controlled through the coordinated and concurrent extension of public facilities and services. New development should pay for itself, i.e., costs for facilities and services, rather than being subsidized by and thus “parasitizing” the existing urban area. The existing spatial pattern conditioned the Manatee Plan, e.g., the characteristics of the four designated growth zones. Manatee County was using the plan to affect the spatial pattern. However, the focus of the Manatee Plan was more on the qualitative aspects of development, rather than a compact urban form. The planning process in Manatee County, which lagged behind the Sarasota initiatives was undoubtedly influenced by what transpired in Sarasota County, but not in a completely imitative way. Manatee County was choosing its own course. Additionally, the proximity to the perceived evils of the sprawling cities on the northern shores of Tampa Bay was a concern that Sarasota County did not have and resulted in a distinctly different approach. In effect, the development of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties was part of the Manatee County setting of interaction. The comparison of the similar and divergent approaches of Sarasota and Manatee counties reveals the role of agency and the unique local structures that were being (re-)produced in the two adjacent locales. The local-state was the major actor, although certainly influenced by elements of civil society and capital in each county. Yet, there is no basis to consider that either civil society nor capital had significantly different agendas as they drew upon their own rules and resources. The local-state, in each case, was navigating its own course through the murky waters of urban sprawl.

1975

By 1975, six years after the development of the first plan to control urban sprawl, the following observations can be made. First, a planning ideology spanning state, cultural, and capital spheres, had rooted itself into the Sarasota locale. This ideology included the concepts: The acceptance of planning as an appropriate activity of the local state; The belief that growth is good, but has some negative features and externalities; The identification of urban sprawl as a negative feature of growth; The belief that land use planning can be effective in controlling

170

urban sprawl; The purpose of land use planning is not to stop growth, but to manage growth and Planning must attempt to accommodate and balance multiple goals Second, land use planning became a regularized practice (system) in Sarasota County. This regularized practice was enabled and constrained by both the emerging planning ideology as well as other structures addressing, for example, the sanctity of property rights; the desire to maintain quality of life via low-density residential living; and the perceived need to accommodate growth and all styles of living, i.e. high density, low-density, estate, and ranchett (typically five- to ten-acre parcels where ex-urbanites could keep horses or a few farm animals. Additionally, development of low-density, sprawled developments continued as a regularized practice, enabled by market success. This practice was carried out by both small and large real estate interests, linked to local and global development institutions. Third, the Plan did not drive the urban containment approach, but rather it was recursively linked to the landscape, physical, legal and political. In previous decades when this landscape was modified by platting and other activities, unacknowledged future conditions were created that formed the basis for future actions. These conditions were explicitly recognized by the Plan through its definitions of urban and rural areas and the future land use map. Once the new urban boundary lines were located in 1975, new conditions were established which would form the basis of future actions. The 1975 Plan, in terms of its stated goals to discourage urban sprawl, was symbolic at best and a sham at worst. The containment lines and various land use designations did not restrict development in any significant way. This was most evident in the Future Land Use Map designation of “rural” at one dwelling unit per acre – east of the containment line. Yet the very terminology of containment gave the impression that the Plan was a strong regulatory tool to restrict runaway growth. The rhetoric expressed an overwhelming confidence that the plan would address urban sprawl as well as successfully address the other goals of the plan. In 1975, Manatee County revised its plan in two significant ways. First, it drew upon outside planning consultants from Tampa. In doing so, the planning process was explicitly opened up to outside planning ideologies. Second, it indirectly copied the Sarasota County containment approach which it had implicitly criticized in OPUG as a wrong-headed “Chinese Wall.”

171

The 1975 Manatee Plan was based on a similar set of beliefs, i.e. planning ideology as in Sarasota but also emphasized the following: that the planning process was continuous, and therefore the plan is subject to change based on changing conditions; and that the plan is not meant to dictate/determine future land uses, but rather to “facilitate the economic forces which determine land use The Manatee Plan was different from the Sarasota Plan in terms of its emphasis on directing growth through the provision of urban facilities and services. Manatee County directly linked land use planning and development with the planned provision of urban facilities and services. The county continued the policy of requiring developments to provide and pay for public facilities and services if the county was unable to do so. Noting however that the County’s ability to implement and enforce such policies were limited. The concepts that development should be timed with the provision of facilities and services and pay for its own impact had been clearly announced – reflecting a local rule of legitimation, however the county did not have the resources of authorization to fully enforce such rules. It did have allocative resources, i.e. power to tax and build public works, which it used to plan for and build facilities in support of the policies. Rather than adopt a containment boundary line, Manatee County retained the four development zones that were explicitly based upon the existing land use pattern. By planning policy, these four zones were linked prospectively to the provision of facilities and services, when they would be provided and who would pay. These development zones were the most visible example of how the Plan was based upon the existing land use and infrastructure patter, i.e., the existing urban form reacted back upon the planning process. Finally, the Manatee Plan was less specific than the Sarasota Plan in terms of the density and intensity of uses, reflecting the more flexible approach.

After 1975

The adoption of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act by the State of Florida in 1975 reflected the growing influence of a planning ideology. The underlying ideology now supported by written laws, concrete products of the State, enabled the local-state to expand its resources of authorization through the planning process. Local-states retained substantial autonomy and the battle of competing ideologies remained local, i.e., the State of Florida did not impose particular land use decisions (what should go where) on the local-state. Exceptions

172

included Developments of Regional Impact and Areas of Critical State Concern, the latter of which was not applicable to either Sarasota or Manatee counties. With the adoption of the 1975 Plans, the ideological battle between pro-growth and anti- growth began to take more specific form, sometimes with the creation of organizations oriented to particular causes. The growth opponents argued for limits to the extent and rate of growth. The growth proponents argued for planned and sensible growth, but growth nevertheless. The local state was compelled to reexamine its planning process and plans. In doing so, they sought insight from planning activities around the country (reflexive monitoring). They were very concerned about the legalities and technical/scientific soundness of the planning effort. The planning process became necessarily linked with legal and technical/scientific processes, which to a large measure were extra-local in origin. In other words, the planning process was defined by linkages to these other processes. Capital and civil society often via concrete organizations, sought to influence the planning process with legal and scientific arguments. The local state was pressed to define and defend growth management. Additionally, regardless of the specific planning approach, the local-state took the position that population growth must be accommodated, a consistent rationalization of a planning process that promoted growth and development. The planning questions were not whether and how to stop or even slow growth, but how to manage and direct growth. In Sarasota County, water and wastewater infrastructure systems were not well coordinated with efforts to contain sprawling development. In fact, actions were taken to supply both centralized water and sewer to area east of the urban containment line. Within the urban containment area, services were scattered. The State of Florida enacted rules that allowed up to four dwelling units per acre when central water was available. This effectively foreclosed the use of regional wastewater systems to control the location of development in the absence of strict local rules requiring development to connect to regional systems. Moreover, higher densities were allowed through the provision of wastewater package plants, further allowing scattered, leapfrog developments both inside and outside the containment boundary. The effect of the County’s failure to provide regional water and sewer facilities was identified as a problem by the development community itself, which

173

noted the problem of urban sprawl within the containment line as an unwanted and unexpected consequence of the County’s policies.

1980s

During the 1970’s, population growth increased in Sarasota County and the development pattern became less dense, more sprawling. This raised concerns that planning was failing to accomplish its stated goals and preserve quality of life. The planning ideology that planning was an appropriate activity of the local-state continued to grow in power, as evidenced by the production of laws and “expert” opinions. The 1975 Local Government Planning Act and the 1978 Home Rule Charter for Sarasota County were concrete products that in-turn were utilized by the local-state to expand planning activities. Sarasota County employed outside agents, i.e. expert consultants, who rendered opinions as to the meaning of these laws as well as other rules, laws, systems, and products in other locales. These provisional agents of the local-state occupied unique positions within the local- state’s organizational framework. This allowed them to interpret local conditions and advise other state agents as to appropriate actions. These consultants advised that the local-state had the legal authority to expand planning to control the timing, phasing, and amount of development, but not prevent population growth. The overall ideology can be summarized as follows: Growth is necessary for a stable economy and the free market system, which relies on private property rights, is sacrosanct. However unmanaged growth can negatively impact the natural environment, agricultural lands, living space and ultimately the quality of life. Therefore, growth must be planned and managed to achieve a desirable balance between the environment and economy. Local government is the key actor in achieving this balance and should work cooperatively with the private sector as it plans the future. The 1975 Plan and the continually evolving urban landscape were identified as important factors in the development of the new 1980/81 plans. Planners recognized that the earlier plans were internally inconsistent by attempting to establish a geographically compact urban area and simultaneously having low density development. Planners expressed the desire to resolve this inconsistency. The existing development landscapes (material objects) did not have the intrinsic power to direct future land use planning. Rather, they represented varying degrees and types (e.g.

174

financial and emotional) of investment in the land, however speculative. They represented the operation of the free market economy. As such, these development landscapes were contingently linked to rules that legitimized their existence. For example, some lands were recognized by the local state as have a legal right to develop despite the plan, i.e. the property was legally vested. The resulting plan was a very complex and ambitious document that purported to accomplish multiple, conflicting objectives. The heritage of the I-75 containment line was retained, while expanding development opportunities west of the line. The containment line and designated land uses did in fact limit development in some areas, but also allowed development in other areas. Manatee County continued to experience rapid population growth through the 1970’s and responded with new planning actions throughout the 1980’s. Manatee County continued to have a somewhat different approach to planning than Sarasota County. Three differences can be highlighted. First, both counties explicitly recognized economic forces as primary drivers for population growth and land use change. However, whereas Sarasota County developed detailed regulations to manage growth, Manatee County established a more general and flexible regulatory scheme in order to better respond to market conditions. The Manatee plan was oriented more to accommodating growth rather than directing growth. Second, Manatee County focused more on individual developments rather than the broader land use pattern that was of concern to Sarasota County. Manatee appeared to have a greater concern with the provision of infrastructure and the fiscal impacts of individual development. By taking this approach, Manatee County was addressing a major complaint of sprawl, i.e. that sprawl developments are inefficient and costly because they are subsidized by existing development. Third, the eastward expansion of development did not have the same negative connotations as in Sarasota County, as long as infrastructure was provided. During the early 1980’s, Manatee County, in conjunction with capital and civil society, began to conduct a more intensive examination of growth planning. This included the Southeast Sector Task Force and the North County Gateway Study. These activities were the concretized and systematized expressions of the pro-growth and anti-growth ideologies competing for local- state recognition and action. These studies resulted in amendments to the Manatee Plan and

175

ultimately led to the adoption of the Evers Reservoir Watershed Plan in 1987 – for the purpose of protecting potable water supplies for the City of Bradenton. However, it is important to note that much of this planning came after the approval of substantial developments in these areas. In other words, the planning was not proactive but reactive and would be unable to alter already approved developments that had vested legal rights. Further, even when valuable resources were at stake, the resulting regulatory policies were still quite flexible and allowed considerable development. Although urban sprawl as well as environmental concerns abounded in both counties, these Manatee County efforts appear to clearly reveal an important aspect of the planning process. Planning activities in both counties are reacting to the existing urban form, limiting their effectiveness and certainly limiting their power to direct land uses. Moreover, it is the development process that precedes the planning process that is primarily determinative of development patterns. This occurs because the local-state has not taken action prior to a general recognition of problems, despite the extensive rhetoric of planning as a proactive activity. In this regard, the establishment of a strict and firm containment line could be viewed as a truly proactive and meaningful regulatory action if it was strictly enforced and maintained. On the other hand, the Manatee County approach has explicitly been reactive. The solution to urban sprawl lies not in the direction of urban patterns but in ensuring that urban development, wherever it is, is well planned, served by adequate infrastructure, and pays for itself, i.e. is not subsidized by existing development. In 1985 and 1986 the State legislature revised the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act in a number of significant ways. These included the establishment of minimum plan criteria and State review of local plans to evaluate whether the minimum criteria were met. This included the general requirement that local plans were required to be consistent with regional and State plans. Thus, the local planning process was deliberately opened up to include regional and State issues. In other words, the settings of interaction for the planning process had been significantly changed, providing for an overlap of scales and a hierarchy of power – at least according to the codified laws. The actual effects of the new laws, intended and unintended was not yet apparent. The new State laws required specific regulatory actions on the part of the local state. These included the discouragement of urban sprawl and the concurrent provision of adequate

176

public facilities and services when needed by development. However, the specifics of what constituted urban sprawl, what was necessary to discourage sprawl, and how necessary public facilities and services would be provided and financed were not provided and left to the now broadened planning process, consisting of local, regional, and state organizations. The regional planning councils, regional-state organizations consisting of local- government representatives from multi-county regions, adopted regional plans. These plans provided the same type of rhetoric as in the local plans and generally in a more generalized fashion. The State Plan, codified by state statute, also provided similar generalized policies. It remained for the local government to specify the precise form of growth management regulations. As one regional director noted during statewide workshops for the new law, “the local plan is where the rubber meets the road.” The local-state, including specific organizations and positions, retained the bulk of the resources of authorization to regulate land uses and address issues of urban sprawl.

After the 1985/86 Growth Management Act

The claimed major revision to Apoxsee in 1989 (Wilkison 2001), in response to the 1985/86 growth management act, was based on the continuing confrontation of pro- and anti- growth ideologies with urban sprawl being a focus of attention. Planners continued to acknowledge the influence of the existing land use pattern. Moreover, past trends, i.e. the process of land development as well as the product was used to plan for the future. Specifically, analysis of future land use “needs” was based on the historical trend of development at low densities. This approach was recognized as professionally acceptable by the professional planning community to the degree that a denial of past trends would be challenged as not being professionally correct. This planning methodology was compatible with the dominate belief in civil society that low density development provided a better quality of life and the common practices of the development community (builders and financers) to produce low-density suburban subdivisions – a low-risk approach most likely to produce a profit based on previous successes. In other words, an important aspect of the land use planning process was the re-production of past landscapes and patterns via a structuration process.

177

The complex and confusing policies and terminology of the 1982 award winning plan were replaced by simpler policies. With regards to the containment line, new language was produced to euphemize and deny the reality that the containment line had been long breached. The 1985/86 growth management act spurred a flurry of activity in Manatee County and the debate between pro- and anti-growth advocates was intense. Many of the agents and organizations, capital and civil society, had extra-local connections. However, the arguments and results were similar. The new 1989 Plan, developed primarily by consultants for a half million dollar fee, was much more complex and legalistic than previous plans. The regulatory components were similar, i.e. allow development as long as it is adequately supported by necessary facilities and services. The County copied the Sarasota County containment line approach. The containment line (similar to the original Sarasota County line in the early 1970’s) was located far east into the rural landscape, encompassing substantially more land area than was needed for the planning period. Additionally, low-density residential development was privileged and high-density residential development was restricted. The Plan included explicit rhetoric for discouraging urban sprawl. However, key officials opined that it was the market that controlled development and that as long as adequate facilities and services are available, urban sprawl doesn’t exist. The Manatee Plan effectively defined-away the issue of sprawl by establishing an urban containment line that would not be threatened and asserting that development within the containment boundary was not urban sprawl as long as it had adequate facilities and services.

1990s

During the early 1990’s, the growth management debate continued in Sarasota County and it was clear that the 1989 Plan did not satisfy many. Anti-growth organizations like The Growth-restraint and Environmental Organization attempted and failed to wrest land use regulatory authority from the local-state. Over two dozen plan amendments were proposed between 1990 and 1995; 19 were adopted and 7 were either withdrawn or denied. However, none of the amendments made major changes to the future land use map. Sarasota County continued to seek out advice from outside consultants. Possible reasons for this are: the local growth management debate had reached a stalemate and local agents and organizations of capital and civil society were seeking support for their conflicting positions; and

178

agents and organizations of the local state were being battered by a legitimacy crisis and sought either to bolster their current approaches or pursue alternative approaches. In 1995-96, Sarasota County completed a comprehensive evaluation and appraisal of the Plan. Initially, this resulted in a major new policy to plan for development east of the long- standing containment line. Ultimately however, the Board of County Commissioners rejected this major change to the land use planning/development status quo. For many, this evidenced a failure on the part of the local-state to plan effectively rather than a simple defeat of pro-development interests for the following reason. Retention of the containment line restricted the development of a profitable suburban landscape but did not restrict the piecemeal destruction of the rural landscape via ranchette development (5-10 acre lots). Thus, property interests were unable to achieve maximum profits and those interested in preserving a rural landscape could not stop its incremental destruction under the current planning regime. It was at this point that capital and civil society formed a unique alliance to solve the stalemate. The association, called the Multi-Stakeholders Group (MSG), was expressly formed to resolve the ideological and operatational impasse. It was unique because it contained both pro-growth and anti-growth agents of capital and civil society. Rather than independently seek to influence actions of the local-state, agents of capital and civil society chose to seek common ground in the hope of influencing the local-state with a united front. The MSG was a historically contingent realist-structure. The MSG developed a set of guiding principles which were essentially the same principles embodied in local government planning over the previous 30 years. These guiding principles were insufficient at providing true operational guidance as to what actions the local- state should take. At this point, the county entered into a limited engagement with MSG. The new association could be viewed as the concrete expression of a growth/growth- management coalition that had likely existed for some time. This coalition composed of conflicting interests nevertheless resulted in the production of policies and plans that allowed certain types and intensities of development, distributed over the landscape. The difference between the MSG and previously veiled realist-structures within the ambient of either capital or civil society, was the overt decision to work together through a concrete association. Previously, the realist structure was one where agents and ideologies directly competed. The MSG was an attempt at cooperation rather than confrontation.

179

The MSG was unsuccessful at creating a consensus vision plan but was successful at developing two clearly opposing visions of development and land use planning/growth management. The local-state used these newly created, socially defined, concrete objects as a foundation for the next plan iteration. Once again, Sarasota County sought advice from outside the locale, bringing in the development industry organization, the Urban Land Institute. The ULI reiterated criticisms that had been leveled at county planning for years, including those provided by the county’s own planners. Finally, after seeking yet additional outside counsel, the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners directed county planners to embark upon an ambitious new plan for the county, including areas east of I-75. This new plan was developed at great cost by outside consultants and dubbed the Resource Management Area (RMA) system. The county adopted the new plan and it is presently under legal challenge by Manasota 88, an anti-sprawl organization of civil society promoting environmental protection In Manatee County the 1990’s saw a continuation of the debate. Pro-growth advocates once again expressed the inevitability of development and the determining role of the market. State agents continued to rationalize the planning effort by crafting a definition of sprawl limited to inadequate facilities and services and discounting the questions of location and urban growth pattern. Anti-growth and anti-sprawl advocates continued to voice the opinion that growth does not pay for itself and destroys natural resources. During the debate, development marched on, seemingly unabated by land use planning and regulation. The revised 1998/99 Plan did not establish new policy direction for the county. However, the subject of urban sprawl was more given more prominence in many goals, objectives, and policies of the plan. Much of the language was “planning speak” enabled by underlying rules of signification. That is, the plan was filled with terminology that appeared to represent clear and decisive action against sprawl, but in fact had vague meaning. Terms such as “predicable and functional urban form” and “a logical expansion of the urban environment” had nebulous meanings that might vary by the reader. Other policies appeared promising but upon close reading accomplished little, for example, “limit urban sprawl through consideration of new development, when deemed compatible with future growth, in areas which are currently

180

undeveloped yet suitable for improvements” could just as easily be stated – develop in the right place. The plan itself continued to rely on existing development patterns and growth projections. The existing urban sprawl patterns (density and distribution) were projected into the future.

Summary of Sarasota County

Sarasota County is a unique locality. It is a place distinguished by a large elderly population generated by massive in-migration from the northern United States. While not one of the richest places in the country, it nevertheless is a place of substantial wealth, as well as significant but hidden poverty. There are many indicators that the City of Sarasota, and by association, Sarasota County, is perceived as an area of sophistication and high culture. The north county region of Sarasota is widely regarded as having perhaps the most attractive quality of life in southwestern Florida" (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1990, 3-10). The Sarasota Ballet of Florida and the Florida West Coast Symphony perform at the Van Wezel performing arts hall. Impressive museums include the John and Mable Reingling Museum of Art. The City of Sarasota boasts "the highest concentration of art galleries, per capita, of any city in the country" (City of Sarasota Planning Department 2000). Sarasota also is the site of many plays, concerts, shows and festivals. (Liang 2000). Money magazine named Sarasota as the 21st Best Place to Live in the U.S. (Sarasota County Economic Development Board 1999: 2).

Sarasota County has a supreme and practically unrealistic future vision of itself.

In the 21st century, Sarasota County will become a sustainable community of creative professionals dedicated to advancing wellness, culture, the arts, knowledge, and technology in an environment of extraordinary natural beauty (Growth Strategies Organization, Inc. and the Sarasota County Economic Development Board 1997).

The overarching belief that quality of life is important as well identification of the particular “qualities” which constitute quality of life within the Sarasota locality are rules of legitimation. Environmental quality includes clean water for drinking and recreation. Environmental quality also includes healthy and sustainable natural ecosystems such as wetlands. Cultural quality includes the performing and fine arts, “high society,” and subjects

181

such as historical preservation. Quality of life is measured also by urban and suburban residential amenities (use values) including access to and control of space and places in terms of amount, privacy, homogeneity, attractiveness, and utility for particular purposes. Thus, subdivisions that provide large houses, large lots, recreational amenities (e.g., golf courses), and privacy (e.g., distance from perceived incompatible activities or security via walls and gates) are highly valued. These same subdivisions typify urban sprawl development. County residents have treasured their natural environments for decades. They have nurtured their cultural and historic resources. They have used their resources to fight for their beliefs. Their concern for maintaining a "high quality of life" has significantly influenced the policies and actions of county government and in-turn, the urban landscape. The attitude that we can and must plan a good city, goes back to John Nolen's Plan of 1924 for the City of Sarasota and has been carried over to plans in recent decades (City of Sarasota Planning Department 2000; McDonough 1998). Sarasota County is also a place where the opportunities for capital gain, directly and indirectly, often via the residential development industry, conflict head on with those who would preserve Sarasota County as they found it. Exchange values and use values are in constant competition. These structural attributes of Sarasota County are reflected in the urban landscape and the multitude of county regulatory devices (practices and laws) used to manage urban development and plan for the future. Social, economic, and political ideologies and actions have created the present landscape and are actively working to produce the urban landscape of the future. However, amidst the surficial discursive arguments and actions are many unacknowledged conditions and unintended consequences. Both growth and growth management ideologies have been strong and enduring institutions, forming structures that constitute the medium for recursive actions over the past 30 years. These structures are being continuously recreated and modified through the actions of individuals and organizations, including county government. Global influences defined here as influences from outside of the local setting, i.e. extra- local, have had a significant impact on Sarasota County growth management and the production of an urban sprawl landscape. Most notable is an unquestioning and mostly unrecognized acceptance of neoclassical economic assumptions regarding the determining forces of the urban

182

landscape. This is combined with a positivist paradigm that assures planners of the truth of their analyses, projections, and convictions. Legal structures, systems and laws have both enabled and constrained growth management in Sarasota County. In this case, Sarasota's traditional understandings or ideology of what one can do with their own property constitute a powerful force which guides actions, sometimes irrespective of what the written law or system, would dictate. County planners have openly expressed a concern for the legal correctness of their actions and county lawyers have been particularly conservative in their “reading” of the law so as not to put the County at legal risk. (Sarasota County Planning Department 1980: xx, and 1986) Yet at the same time, the legal systems consisting of statutes and rules have expanded the scope, function and force of growth management activities. The new laws, starting in the early 1970’s have made a difference. The key growth management and development players recognize this. For example, the Sarasota Herald Tribune(1991) reported the following:

Taken together, the body of environmental and land-use law that has come into being in the past 20 years reflects an extraordinary change in the way Thaxton [a current County Commissioner] and other Floridians value the state's natural environment. And it reflects an equally radical change in Floridians willingness to impose limits on what landowners can do with their property. …a developers "rights" to develop his land collide with the values society now places both on the physical characteristics of the land and the project's impact on not just the developer's land, but the surrounding area as well. (Warren 1991-C)

Sarasota County has sought expert, outside counsel to guide their efforts. Generally speaking, this outside counsel has supported the County’s growth management efforts. However, even with the new laws, growth management is constrained by decisions of the courts, especially in terms of Constitutional restrictions. For example, one legal advisor commenting on a proposed county initiative noted that the plan must

allow the community to accommodate all projected population; that it allows for diversity of housing type, style and cost; and it is not exclusionary; that it does not interfere with the “right to travel”; that it is economically feasible; and that it is not arbitrary (Freilich & Leitner 1982, 4)

A consideration of these issues severely constrains what a local government can do. For example, the plan must accommodate all projected population. So, it is not legally possible to simply say no to further population growth. Other communities attempting to stop or slow

183

population growth caused by in-migration have failed. See, for example, the City of Boca Raton. Even those communities that have been noted for their growth management systems have not been able to stop population growth. See, for example, Petaluma, California. Nevertheless, there are multiple land use forms that can be planned to accommodate the projected population. But the land use pattern of least political resistance, if not legal, is to continue urban sprawl, which the development community argues is favored by the market. Sarasota County has been recognized as exemplifying "good planning" in Florida. Many of the county's initiatives have been praised and copied. Sarasota County spares no penny in seeking out the best advice and the best consultants. However, satisfaction with the outcome of the county's planning has been mixed at best, particularly in regard to urban sprawl. In Sarasota County, the perceived impact of urban sprawl on the quality of life have been a part of the community dialogue since the early 1970's. Often, the issue of urban sprawl has pitted elements of civil society against capital interests in a high profile fight, fittingly described as "The Brawl Over Sprawl," which was the actual title of a meeting sponsored by the Council of Neighborhood Associations, Inc. in 1999 (Higgins 1999).

Summary of Manatee County

Manatee County is similar to Sarasota County in numerous ways. In particular, the physical geography and demographics are quite comparable. Economically, there are some significant differences. Manatee County is oriented much more toward manufacturing and agricultural activities compared to Sarasota County's orientation to services. In terms of overall wealth and high culture, Manatee County is the poorer cousin to Sarasota County. Indeed, few places in Florida could match Sarasota County’s concentration of cultural attributes. Yet, Manatee County should not be equated to a provincial, blue collar backwater. Rather, Manatee County is quite proud of its own heritage. It proudly celebrates its history as the starting point of Hernando DeSoto’s initial exploration of La Florida. The county’s position as a leading agricultural producer and the transformation of its rural landscapes to desirable suburban living environments is proudly advertised as well. Manatee County has aggressively pursued its own vision of the American dream. This vision was more open to receiving those with somewhat lesser wealth and resulted in the development of more affordable housing, often in the form of manufactured housing and mobile homes. Thus, Manatee County has its own unique set of social structures and systems combined

184

to form a regime of accumulation and mode of regulation that produce a distinctive urban landscape and patterns of urban sprawl. Manatee County is not interested in mimicking Sarasota County but seeks to pursue an independent course of action guided by its vision of the future. This vision includes:

A county with “vibrant” downtowns and riverfronts; vast tracts of environmentally protected lands; efficient transportation networks; education and business climates that enable people to grow up, stay and establish careers here; and neighborhoods where people of all incomes and backgrounds can find safe, affordable housing (Sarasota Herald 2003).

This vision is rooted in the concerns the everyday life. It emphasizes the basics of living and working – and an emphasis on the protection of natural resources. It contrasts sharply with the Sarasota vision which emphasizes a more esoteric and elegant vision of high culture and technology. Interviews of Manatee County residents reinforced this vision. When asked what distinguished Manatee County, the typical response was a good place for raising a family. Nothing fancy, just a basic notion that Manatee County is a good place to live. The Manatee Chamber of Commerce has identified this positive attributes that attract people to Manatee County on their web site (http://www.manateechamber.com). These include picturesque villages; the rural atmosphere of eastern area; 150 miles of pristine shoreline; subtropical climate; tropical landscapes; welcoming ambiance; pleasing pace of life; residential choice; restored Victorian jewels; country club communities; retirement settings; year-round recreation; low cost of living; and affordable housing. Manatee County has not fought the intense battles of Sarasota County over urban sprawl. Debates, disagreements, and difficult decisions on issues of growth management and urban sprawl have occurred – but they have not been framed so sharply as a battle between anti-growth forces and pro-development forces. Rather, Manatee County has consistently sought ways to provide for growth rather than either deny or fight growth as has sometimes been the case in Sarasota County. This has resulted in a different pattern of development.

185

Conclusions

Before considering the research questions, some preliminary comments are appropriate. The question as to what generates, enables, and constrains policies and actions of the local state subsumes many of the subsequent research questions. The initial purpose of the question was to identify the structures, i.e., rules of legitimation, rules of signification, resources of allocation, and resources of authorization that are the medium and outcome of actions by agents and organizations as they act in ways to encourage or discourage urban sprawl. However, as the empirical research proceeded interactively with the continuing development of a theory that integrates structuration and realism, it became apparent that the recursive nature of the stratification model of human action inevitably implicated other factors of causation. The reflexive monitoring of action whereby actors “routinely monitor aspects, social and physical, of the contexts in which they move” means that the actions of the local state are based in part on the actions (and their outcomes) of capital and civil society as well as other spheres of the state (Giddens 1984, 5). Moreover, the context of action includes material objects and their spatial context including development, whether conceptualized as a low-density suburban community that epitomizes the American dream or urban sprawl that gluttonously consumes natural and economic resources. While all objects and realist-structures have powers to affect the development of land, it is the “peopled” objects and realist-structures that initiate actions and it is the individuals residing within these objects and realist-structures who conduct the reflexive monitoring. Therefore, things such as past- and projected population growth; capital profit from the development of low-density suburbia; technology; existing development patterns; land ownership patterns and undeveloped plats; and global happenings are all factors that enable, constrain, and ultimately contribute to the generation of policies and actions of the local-state. Land planning by the local state is particularly directed by this reflexive monitoring in that land planning explicitly considers existing conditions as well as conditions that are projected for the future. Planning is by definition a mechanism with the explicit purpose of directing future events and seeking to achieve particular future conditions. The following table summarizes the findings to the initial research questions.

186

Table 5: Research Questions and Common Findings General Sarasota County Manatee County What generates, enables, and constrains policies and actions of Sarasota and Manatee counties that encourage and/or discourage urban sprawl? The Florida Growth and Actions include population migration; business (re-)location; marketing, selling, buying, and Development Realist-Structure developing land; use of broad property rights to develop land within an mostly unregulated market; (Figure __), including the and growth promotion. Outcomes include rapid population growth; environmental degradation, following: development industry success and profit; achievement of the American dream of homeownership; unique mode of regulation and regime of accumulation (Jessop 1990). Pro-growth ideology and Growth is good, natural, By the 1970's, the pro-growth The pro-growth ideology never economic determinism beyond the power of the state ideology was strongly strongly contested to either create or stop, i.e. the contested by agents and market controls future organizations in civil society development and to an increasing degree by the local-state Limited-government ideology Belief that government has a limited role in regulating and managing growth was paramount prior to the late 1960's. The alternative belief that government should manage growth and development developed slowly, mostly outside of Florida and expanded into Florida resulting in State growth management legislation and local government comprehensive planning and environmental regulation. The effect of growth management policies and plans has varied throughout Florida. State supported capital A variety of actions ranging During the 1970's and 1980's, Consistent in its support of accumulation from favorable tax systems and the county attempted to development through the government subsidies of discourage growth by not provision of roads and development through the providing centralized water and infrastructure and sought to construction of roads and other sewer systems. This resulted have development pay its fair infrastructure. in lower density development share of growth. reliant on individual wells, septic tanks, and package plants. Extra-local state actions Includes Federal actions to encourage homeownership (tax laws, mortgage insurance), and the development construction of the interstate highway network, providing improved access to Florida.

187

1. Table 5 Continued Economics of land Urban fringe lands less costly to develop and more profitable to the property capital interests. development American dream of low-density Low-density suburban development consumes more land and causes a spreading out of the suburbia population. Planning ideology Planning is an appropriate Since the early 1970's, Comprehensive planning was activity of the state. Planning comprehensive planning was intended to address issues should be rational, objective, increasingly accorded the role such as urban sprawl, but the scientific, and pursued in the of regulating the negative market has been accorded a general public interest yet also externalities of the market determinative role in the flexible and responsive to based on scientific methods ultimate shaping of the political needs. and expert professional community. opinions. Cheap transportation The dominance of automobiles over mass transit; low-fuel costs; and an efficient road network enable people to live greater distances from work, shopping, and other destinations. Concepts of urban sprawl and A recurring debate regarding Sprawl is recognized as bad how it can be limited. sprawl and what to do about it but is essentially defined away has resulted in numerous plans by the belief that development and policies ranging from adequately served by roads containment to complicated and infrastructure is not sprawl. land use schemes. Environmentalism The belief that unregulated Policies to protect and conserve the environment are extensively development is destroying the debated and a prominent part of the planning/regulatory scheme natural environment. of each county. Yet, they are not as strong as in some other Florida jurisdictions and allow considerable environmental degradation. Quality of Life A two edged sword with regards to urban sprawl as quality of life in both counties is typically linked to low-density development.

188

2. Table 5 Continued What policies and actions of Prior to the 1970's neither county had policies or programs to address sprawl. The land Sarasota and Manatee development process was unregulated. Sprawl was produced by the unfettered operation of the counties encourage urban market. sprawl in some ways and Since the early 1970's and particularly since the revision of the State's growth management discourage it in others? legislation in 1985/86 when urban sprawl became an explicit concern, comprehensive planning was AND the primary means for regulating land use. Infrastructure planning, initially a separate activity, was How integrated into the comprehensive planning process after 1986. (mechanisms/processes) do policies and actions of Sarasota and Manatee counties help to produce the intended and unintended consequences of sprawl?

Control density of urban The general planning Both counties have consistently promoted low densities through development consensus is that densities of the designation of low-density land use categories over most of three dwelling units per acre the areas planned for urban development and through restrictions and lower constitute urban on higher densities. sprawl. Control density of rural The general planning Both counties have consistently allowed higher densities in the development consensus is that appropriate rural areas, ranging from one unit per acre to one unit per five rural densities are one unit per acres. Clustering is not generally required or even allowed. ten acres or more, preferably clustered to preserve larger expanses of rural open space. Contain the expansion of urban The general planning The urban containment line, The urban containment line, areas consensus is that urban areas originally adopted in 1971, was originally adopted in 1989, was should be compact and urban so large as to not serve as an even larger than that of containment is the preferred effective containment of urban Sarasota County and failed to method. Mixed uses are growth. Further, urban restrict urban expansion in any desirable and seen as an development of one unit per meaningful way. antithesis to sprawl. acre was allowed beyond the boundary.

189

3. Table 5 Continued Limit the provision of essential In the 1970's the county did not Sought to ensure that new services provide centralized services to development was adequately development in hopes of served by centralized facilities. The general planning discouraging growth. Growth consensus is that new occurred despite this policy, development should be often at lower densities that adequately service by essential might otherwise occur on facilities and services in a centralized systems, leading to timely manner, and pay its fair more sprawl. share of the cost of such Promote the provision of services. Since the 1980's both counties have attempted to provide essential services adequate facilities and services and have adopted impact fees to seek a fair share payment. Impact fees have been shown to fall short of the fair share amount.

What are the particular manifestations of urban sprawl in Sarasota and Manatee counties that are facilitated by the local state? AND How have Sarasota and Manatee counties produced different urban sprawl patterns?

Low-density residential The most prevalent form of residential development in both development counties

190

4. Table 5 Continued Scattered and leapfrog Initially scattered within the Scattered and leap-frog development containment line. Infill of development is the most skipped-over lands is obvious feature of the urban occurring, particularly in the landscape. The containment northern portion of the county. line, adopted in 1989, had no Scattered development has effect on the continuation of a been allowed to occur beyond scattered pattern. the containment boundary, particularly due east of the City of Sarasota, since the late 1970's. How do the spaces of urban Both counties have explicitly The county has frequently re- The county has recognized the sprawl (acknowledged and recognized that the existing examined the urban landscape, concept of urban sprawl, but unacknowledged spatial spatial pattern of development often seeking advice of outside typically denies that urban conditions) influence the must be considered when experts (agents). sprawl is a problem in Manatee actions of Sarasota and planning for future Contemporary planning County. Urban sprawl, as a Manatee counties? development. This has practice has been a guide feature of the landscape as resulted in a de-facto validation (rule) in this effort. Repeatedly, defined by most planning of sprawl. the county has concluded that authorities, is not recognized. urban sprawl is continuing, urban sprawl is bad, and that other policies must be implemented to discourage sprawl.

191

The differences between Sarasota and Manatee counties with respect to how the institutions of the local state have addressed the subject of urban sprawl are summarized as follows: Sarasota has sought to regulate the market while Manatee has acted to facilitate the market. Sarasota, via its early adoption of a containment boundary and attempts to slow development by withholding infrastructure has acted to discourage undesirable development. Manatee, on the other hand, has sought to encourage desirable development by coordinating the governmental provision of infrastructure within a more expansive urban containment boundary. Sarasota’s plan has focused on the overall patterns of growth while Manatee’s programs have attempted to promote higher quality individual developments with less regard for location. The issue of urban sprawl is contested in both counties, however less so in Manatee County due to its narrow definition. Finally, the Sarasota County planning efforts have been replete with the unintended consequences of undesirable growth and a recurring effort to fix past problems while Manatee County chooses, again via its narrower definitions of sprawl and growth management, to not acknowledge the sprawl pattern of development and instead focus on the positive qualities of development (Interviews, multiple). The resulting urban patterns are consistent with various definitions of sprawl. In Sarasota County, despite the breach of the urban containment line in some areas, has partially succeeded in limiting the expansiveness of development. Nevertheless, the development that has occurred in Sarasota County has been of a low density, sprawl nature. In Manatee County, a scattered, leap-frog, low density pattern predominates, expanding much further eastward from the urban centers than in Sarasota County. Although Sarasota and Manatee counties are similar in many respects, e.g. physical geography, elderly population, growth rates, and are also similarly linked to global and national forces, particularly in regard to growth and land development, the different policies, plans, and programs of the counties demonstrate the independent nature of each local state to create different urban landscapes. Urban sprawl is not simply the product of capital, but rather a historically and geographically contingent outcome of a structuration process that includes state, capital, and civil society. State, capital, and civil society combine to produce an enduring and institutionalized set of beliefs and practices (a realist-structure) that produce the urban landscape. Concepts of urban sprawl, rational planning, property rights, economic determinism, and quality of life combine in

192

unique ways in each county (locale) to enable and constrain the production of the built environment and urban sprawl. Rules of legitimation and resources of authorization as manifested by State and local laws enable the local state to strictly regulate development. The 1985/1986 Growth Management Act, its implementing administrative codes, and local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations may be used to restrict urban sprawl. However, the interpretation and implementation of these laws and plans is constrained by other sets of rules, resources, and social practices within the spheres of capital and civil society. Thus, restrictions on the proliferation of urban sprawl are moderated to create a regulatory environment that is viewed as judicious, reasonable, and practical. Each locale has its own particular view regarding the degree to which urban sprawl may be restricted. The notion of balancing competing interests is a powerful rule of legitimation that affects and is subsumed by the broader public planning process. The difference in the conceptualization and interpretation of urban sprawl and its manifestation on the landscape by Sarasota and Manatee counties is a reflection of the contested nature of urban sprawl and its appropriate regulation. This enables each local state to rationalize a broad range of policies, programs, and plans to address the issue of urban sprawl as well as State laws to discourage sprawl. Urban sprawl, in its pejorative conceptualization, is not an intentioned product. Low density suburbia that accomplishes profit for capital and a desirable living environment for civil society are intentional products. These competing conceptualizations of the very same material objects, and importantly the spatial form of these objects, are the crux of the issue. It is the socially defined nature of urban form that is contested. The realist-structure that produces this particular pattern of development is contingently related to competing conceptualizations of the material world (material objects and their spatial arrangements). In general, this research posits the following theoretical confirmations and expansions. First, it explicitly integrates spatial form as an object of power into a structuration-realist framework. Second, urban forms are described as spatially distinct combinations of socially defined material objects. These objects have necessary and contingent relationships with state, capital, and civil society. Moreover, these combined objects have emergent powers and liabilities that react back upon social systems.

193

Third, the particular urban form that is constituted by scattered, low density suburbia has multiple meanings and powers related to elements of state, capital, and civil society. These meanings include urban sprawl, profitable development, and desirable living environments, as well as various real and claimed costs and benefits. This leads to mixed and inconsistent actions by the state. These contested meanings enable policy rationalizations. These structures and actions are linked to the reproduction of systems, relationships, and power structures. A modified version of the original research model follows in Figure 22.

194

Future State (S) S,C Capital (C) Urban

Form

Various S,C,CS State Intended and

Actions Unintended S,CS C,CS Influenced by Consequence

Capital and

Civil Society Acknowledged Civil Society (CS) And Unacknowledged Condition for Future Action

Urban Sprawl / Desirable Suburbia / Profitable Development

Socially Defined As

Development in Space

Figure 22: A Revised Model

195

APPENDIX A

HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL

196

197

APPENDIX B

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

198

199

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE LETTER

200

Dear ______:

RE: Interview Request

My name is Robert Pennock and I am a Ph.D. candidate in Geography at Florida State University (FSU). The purpose of this letter is to request an interview with you. My dissertation research is on the role of local government with respect to discouraging and/or encouraging urban sprawl development patterns. I have selected Manatee and Sarasota counties as case study areas for my research. A critical component of my research includes interviews of key individuals in local government and the development industry as well as others who have particular knowledge about growth and development in Manatee and Sarasota counties.

Let me explain a little about my research. The subject of urban sprawl has generated controversy and debate in Florida for many years. To some degree this issue received greater attention with the adoption of local government comprehensive plans pursuant to the 1985 growth management legislation. I myself worked for the Florida Department of Community Affairs (Department) and had an opportunity to address this issue as a planner and administrator in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I left the Department in 1994 and have had the opportunity to research the issue in an academic setting. Based on my experience and education, I believe that additional research focusing on the role of local government and to some degree on comprehensive planning would contribute to a better understanding of the issue and hopefully, improved public policy. With this in mind, I have embarked on the present research.

The primary research questions are as follows:

1. What policies and actions of Manatee/Sarasota counties encourage urban sprawl in some ways and discourage it in others? 2. What generates, enables and constrains these policies and actions? 3. How do policies and actions of Manatee/Sarasota counties help to produce the intended and unintended consequence of urban sprawl? 4. What are the particular patterns of urban sprawl that are facilitated by actions of local government? 5. How does the existence of urban sprawl influence the actions of local government? 6. How do Manatee and Sarasota counties compare?

The purpose of this research is NOT to evaluate whether urban sprawl is good or bad, or to evaluate whether a particular county's policies are good or bad. The six research questions listed above do not make assumptions or assign values as to the quality or pattern of growth and development. Rather, I hope to gain a better understanding of the policies and actions of local government that affect the growth pattern we typically describe as urban sprawl. I am not seeking to acquire any confidential, privileged or personal information. Rather, I am seeking your opinions as well as information on your particular role regarding development and growth management. In addition to your interview (and numerous others) I will be analyzing

201

many public documents, such as your county's local government comprehensive plan and land development regulations.

FSU has strict regulations with regard to research involving people. This includes the requirement to ensure that interview subjects are fully informed as to the nature of the research and their participation in the research. This is confirmed through the signing of an "Informed Consent Form." I have enclosed a copy of the FSU-approved Informed Consent Form for your review. The Informed Consent Form includes specifics regarding the voluntary nature of your participation, the degree of confidentiality and other matters for your information. Should you have any questions regarding the form or my research in general, please telephone me at 850-386-8328 or send me e-mail at [email protected]. If you wish, I can answer your questions in person at the beginning of our meeting. The Informed Consent Form must be signed prior to the actual interview.

I will contact you soon to discuss your participation and to schedule an interview date. Currently, I am planning to conduct interviews during the week of November 13th. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful assistance and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Robert Pennock

202

REFERENCES

ADD Inc. 2000. New Home Construction. (A Real Estate Advertising Publication). October 2000. Sarasota.

Allard, John. 1990. Developers look to the east: Ranches headed out; suburbia on the way. In Manatee ’90: A Supplement to the Bradenton Herald. January 28, 1990.

Alonso, W. 1960. A Theory of the Urban Land Market. Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association 6:149-157

Audirac, Ivonne, Anne H. Shermyen and Marc T. Smith. 1990. Ideal Urban Form and Visions of the Good Life: Florida's Growth Management Dilemma. Journal of the American Planning Association. 55(4): 470-482.

Audirac, Ivonne and Maria Zifou. 1989. Urban Development Issues: What is Controversial in Urban Sprawl? Annotated Bibliography of Often-Overlooked Planning Literature. BEBR Monographs, Issue No. 5. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida.

Binette, Chad. 1999. Planning Board Member Aims for Commission Seat. Sarasota Herald Tribune. December 13, 1999.

Binette, Chad. 2000-A. UF students present ideas from county growth study. Sarasota Herald Tribune. April 29, 2000.

Binette, Chad. 2000-B. Board opposes land use request. Sarasota Herald Tribune. July 21, 2000.

Binette, Chad. 2001. County OKs Study of Growth. In Sarasota Herald Tribune. April 12, 2001.

Blake, Nelson Manfred. 1980. Land into Water/Water into Land: a history of water management in Florida. Tallahassee: University Presses of Florida.

Bourne, Larry S. 1996. Reurbanization, uneven urban development, and the debate on new urban forms. Urban Geography 17(8): 690-713.

203

Bradenton Herald. 2000. Real Estate Buyers Guide. December 2000. Published by the Bradenton Herald.

Bradenton Herald. 2001. Real Estate Buyers Guide. January 2001. Published by the Bradenton Herald.

Brown, James J. 1994. A Brief Guide to Understanding Land Use Planning and Zoning in Florida Environmental and Land Use Law, Volume II, 2nd Edition. Tallahassee: The Florida Bar.

Brown, Susan. 1994. Commission weighs break on impact fees. Sarasota Herald Tribune. December 6, 1994.

Burchell, Robert W. 1978. The Fiscal Impact Handbook : Estimating Local Costs and Revenues of Land Development. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research.

Burchell, Robert W. 1997. Economic and fiscal costs (and benefits) of Sprawl. The Urban Lawyer 29(2): 159-181.

Burchell, Robert W. et al. 1998. The Costs of Sprawl – Revisited. Report Number 39, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 1971. Florida Statistical Abstract. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 1982. Florida Statistical Abstract. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 1992. Florida Statistical Abstract. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 2000. Florida Statistical Abstract. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.

Cadwallader, Martin. 1996. Urban Geography: An Analytical Approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

California Resources Agency, Bank of America, Greenbelt Alliance, Low Income Housing Fund. 1997? Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1990. Executive Summary: The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of a Proposed Moratorium on Sarasota County, Florida. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Carnegie, Adam R. 1988. Letter to Miles Gentry, Manatee County Planning and Development Department, March 24, 1988. Unpublished public record.

204

Carr, Peggy and Paul Zwick. 2000. Environmental Design Practicum: Land Use Plan for Sarasota and Manatee Counties. University of Florida, College of Design, Construction and Planning, Departments of Urban and Regional Planning and Landscape Architecture, (http://www.geoplan.ufl.edu/projects/lu_plan/front_index.html). Gainesville, Florida.

Catlin, Robert A. 1997. Land use planning, environmental protection, and growth management: the Florida experience. Chelsea, Michigan: Ann Arbor Press.

City of Sarasota Planning Department. 2000. City Moves: The Newsletter of the City of Sarasota Planning Department, Nov/Dec 2000. Published in Citytempo Magazine. Lisl Liang, editor. 2000. Sarasota: Trafalger Communications, Inc.

Clarke, James. 1999. Comments from Transcript of the October 4, 1999 Public Forum for the Urban Land Institute Advisory Service Panel. Sarasota: Urban Land Institute.

Cloke, Paul and Chris Philo and David Sadler. 1991. Approaching Human Geography: An Introduction to Contemporary Theoretical Debates. New York and London: The Guilford Press.

Community Affairs, Florida Department of. 1991. Discouraging Sprawl in Local Government Comprehensive Plans in Technical Memo, Special Issue, Volume 4, Number 4. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs.

Community Affairs, Florida Department of. 1993. Report on the Development of Regional Impact Process: January, 1993. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs.

Community Affairs, Florida Department of. 2001. Applications for Development Approval – Sarasota and Manatee Counties, Unpublished Records. Tallahassee.

Council on Economic Development.. 1962. Statistical Abstract of Florida. Tallahasee: State of Florida.

Cox, David. 1995. County Growth: Plan or Pieces? Bradenton Herald. January 8, 1995. Bradenton.

Cox, K. 1998. Scales of dependence, spaces of engagement, and the politics of scale, or looking for local places. Political Geography 17 (1):1-24.

Cox, K. and A. Mair. 1988. Locality and community in the politics of local economic development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 78 (2): 307-325.

Dear, M.J. and A.I. Moos 1986. Structuration theory in urban analysis: 1. Empirical application. Environment and Planning A 18: 231-252.

Dear, M.J. and A.I. Moos 1986. Structuration theory in urban analysis: 2. Empirical application. Environment and Planning A. 18: 351-373.

205

DeGrove, John. 1984. Land, Growth and Politics. Washington, D.C.: Planners Press, American Planning Association.

DeGrove, John. 1996. Twin Strategies to Mitigate the Negative Impacts of Sprawl Development Patterns. Environmental and Urban Issues XXIII (4): 20-23.

DeHaan, Eloise. 1988-A. Coast builds up: Developers look east, north. In Manatee ’88: A supplement to the Bradenton Herald. January 31, 1988.

DeHaan, Eloise. 1988-B. Farmers, ranchers watch development nibble their acreage. In Manatee ’88: A supplement to the Bradenton Herald. January 31, 1988.

Dodrill, David E. 1993. Selling the Dream: The Gulf American Corporation and the Building of Cape Coral, Florida. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.

Easley, V. Gail. (1992) Staying Inside the Lines: Urban Growth Boundaries. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 440.

Evers, Bill. 1984. Letter from Bradenton Mayor Bill Evers to Mr. Jim Garrison, Chairman of the Southeast Sector Task Force, April 23, 1984. Unpublished public record.

Ewing, Reid H. 1994. Characteristics, Causes, and Effects of Sprawl: A Literature Review. Environmental and Urban Issues XXI (2): 1-15.

Ewing, Reid, Rolf Pendall, and Don Chen. 2003. Measuring Sprawl And Its Impact. Washington D.C.: Smart Growth America.

Fernald, Edward A. and Elizabeth D. Purdum, editors. 1996. Atlas of Florida. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida.

Fernald, Edward A. and Elizabeth D. Purdum, editors. 1998. Water Resources Atlas of Florida. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida.

Fischel, William A. 1999. Does the American way of zoning cause the suburbs of metropolitan areas to be too spread out? in Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America. Alan Altshuler, William Morrill, Harold Wolman, and Faith Mitchell, eds. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Fishkind, Henry H. and Jerome W. Milliman. 1978. An Economic Assessment of Growth Management for Sarasota County. Research report sponsored by The Contractors Association of Sarasota, Manatee, Hardee, and Desoto Counties. Gainesville: University of Florida.

Florida Institute of Government. 1999. 1999 Sarasota County Government Citizen Opinion Survey, Final Report Prepared for Sarasota County, Florida. Tampa: Department of Government and International Affairs, University of South Florida.

206

Florida Administrative Code. 1994. Rule Chapter 9J-5. Tallahassee: State of Florida.

Florida Statutes. 1987. Chapter 163, Part II. Tallahassee: State of Florida.

Forester, John. 1985. Critical Theory and Planning Practice in Critical Theory and Public Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Foster, Heath. 1993. Battle looming over cost of growth. Sarasota Herald Tribune. October 13, 1993.

Foster, Heath. 1994-A. Growth-control group seeks to amend charter. Sarasota Herald Tribune. March 17, 1994.

Foster, Heath. 1994-B. Land-use proposal faces stiff challenge. Sarasota Herald Tribune. March 18, 1994.

Foster, Heath. 1994-C. County Seeks Land-Use Strategy. Sarasota Herald Tribune. March 24, 1994.

Frank, James E. 1989. The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of the Literature. Washington D.C.: The Urban Land Institute.

Freilich, Robert H. 1999. From Sprawl to Smart Growth, Successful Legal, Planning, and Environmental Systems. Chicago: American Bar Association.

Freilich & Leitner, P.C. 1982. Growth Management Implementation and Financing Plan, Technical Memorandum, Legal Basis for Timing and Phasing of Development (Prepared for Sarasota County). Kansas City, Missouri.

Freilich, Robert H. and Bruce G. Peshoff. (2000) The Social Costs of Sprawl. The Urban Lawyer 29(2): 183-198.

Fulton, William. 1990. Addicted to Growth Governing 4(1): 68-74.

Ganderton, P. 1994. Modeling the land conversion process: a realist perspective. Environment and Planning A 26: 803-819.

Gannon, Michael, editor. 1996. The New History of Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Garreau, Joel. 1991. Edge City. New York: Doubleday.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

207

Goodwin, Mark and Joe Painter. 1997. Concrete Research, Urban Regimes, and Regulation Theory. In Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Gordon, P. and H. L. Wong. 1985. The costs of urban sprawl: some new evidence. Environment and Planning A 17: 661-666.

Gottdiener, M. 1994. The Social Production of Urban Space. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Governor's Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns: 1989 Final Report. Tallahassee.

Gray, Jerry. 2000. Memo to Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners Re: Observations on North Port Annexations. September 20, 2000. Sarasota.

Gregson, N. 1987. Structuration theory: some thoughts on the possibilities for empirical research. Environment and Planning D 5: 73-91.

Growth Strategies Organization, Inc. and the Sarasota County Economic Development Board. 1997. Sarasota County Economic Development Plan. Vail, Colorado: Growth Strategies Organization.

Hall, Peter. 1997. The Future of the Metropolis and its Form. Regional Studies 31(3): 211-220.

Handy, Susan and Robert G. Paterson and Kent Butler. 2003. Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 515. Washington D.C.: American Planning Association.

Hanson, Paul. 1993. 'Ranch' could start soon. Sarasota Herald Tribune. November 11, 1993.

Harding, Sandra. 1987. Feminism and Methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; Milton Keynes [Buckinghamshire]: Open University Press.

Harrington, Linda. 1989. Development Plans Set for MacArthur Land. Pelican Press. November 23, 1989. Sarasota.

Hatch, George. 1986. Deal Is Cut on MacArthur Tract Land. Sarasota Herald Tribune. December 12, 1986. Sarasota.

Harvey, David. 1973. Social Justice and the City. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Harvey, David. 1982. Limits to Capital: Oxford. B. Blackwell.

Harvey, David. 1990. The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

Harvey, Robert O. and W.A.V. Clark. 1965. The Nature and Economics of Urban Sprawl. Land Economics XLI(1): 1-9.

208

Healey, P. 1986. Emerging directions for research on local land-use planning. Environment and Planning A 13: 103-120.

Healey, P. 1990. Urban Regeneration and the Development Industry. Regional Studies 25(2): 97-110.

Healey, Patsy and Susan M. Barrett. 1990. Structure and Agency in Land and Property Development Processes: Some Ideas for Research. Urban Studies 27(1): 89-104.

Henry, Matthew. 2000. Heritage Sound subdivision approved. Sarasota Herald Tribune. March 22, 2000.

Hielscher, John. 1983. Arvida to Buy 1,100-Acre Tract from Neal. In the Sarasota Herald- Tribune. September 23, 1983.

Hielscher, John. 1998. Sarasota to lose rural enclave. Sarasota Herald Tribune. September 16, 1998.

Higgins, Laura. 1999. Panel focuses on I-75 Growth. Sarasota Herald Tribune. April 13, 1999.

Hollister, Steve. 2000-A. Subdivision Passes First County Hurdle. Bradenton Herald. December 8, 2000.

Hollister, Steve. 2000-B. Holding the Line. Bradenton Herald. December 18, 2000.

Hollister, Steve. 2001. Region OK on Sprawl Index. Bradenton Herald. February 24, 2001.

Horan, Kevin. 1999. Colliding Worlds: Humans and Animals Compete for Homes. Bradenton Herald. November 7, 1999.

Hossfield, Bruce. 1981. The Village Concept in the Manatee Plan. Bradenton: Manatee County Planning and Development Department.

Hull, Victor. 1999. I-75: The Growth Divide. Sarasota Herald Tribune. February 16, 1999. Sarasota.

Interviews conducted from 2000 to 2003. All interviews are confidential.

Jensen, Rex. 1999. Comments from Transcript of the October 4, 1999 Public Forum for the Urban Land Institute Advisory Service Panel. Sarasota: Urban Land Institute.

Jessop, Bob. 1990. Political Economy or Radical Autonomy? Regulation, Societalization, and Autopoiesis. State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in its Place. Pp. 338-369. Cambridge: Polity.

209

Johnson, R.J. and Derek Gregory, Geraldine Pratt, and Michael Watts. 2000. The Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Juergensmeyer, Julian C. 1999. Florida Land Use Law, Second Edition. Charlottesville, Virginia: Lexus Law Publishing.

Kasowski, Kevin. 1991. Sprawl! Can it be stopped? Green belts, "UGBS" and other growth management strategies. Developments Newsletter of the National Growth Management Leadership Project.

Kelly, Eric Damian. 1993. Managing Community Growth: Policies, Techniques, and Impacts. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Kessler, Catherine W. and George H. Meier, editors. 1983. Presentations before the Select Committee on Growth Management. Florida House of Representatives. Tallahassee.

Kenny, Judith. 1992. Portland’s Comprehensive Plan As Text: The Fred Meyer case and the politics of reading in Writing Worlds edited by Trevor J. Barnes and James S. Duncan. London and New York: Routledge.

Knaap, Gerrit and Arthur C. Nelson. 1992. The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State land Use Planning from Oregon. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Knack, Ruth Eckdish. 1997. Go badgers, fight sprawl, a new regional plan pits Madison against surrounding townships. Planning 63(5): 14-17.

Lake, R.W. 1997. State Restructuring, political opportunism, and capital mobility. In State Devolution in America: Implications for a Diverse Society. Lynn Staeheli, Janet Kodras, and Colin Flint, eds. Pp. 3-20. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Langenberg, Sara. 1998. Eastward Development Criticized. Bradenton Herald. August 14, 1998.

Lauria, Mickey, editor. 1997. Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lauria, Mickey. 1997. Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory in Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

League of Women Voters of Manatee County. 1984-A. Hear We Stand. April 19, 1984. Bradenton.

League of Women Voters of Manatee County. 1984-B. Hear We Stand. May 21, 1984. Bradenton.

210

League of Women Voters. 1999. Comments provided at the Community Input Forum (for the Urban Land Institute) on October 4, 1999. Sarasota.

Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Leo, Christopher. 1997. City Politics in an Era of Globalization in Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy. M. Lauria, editor. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Levy, John M. 2000. Urban America Processes and Problems. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Liang, Lisl. 2000. Citytempo Magazine. Sarasota: Trafalger Communications, Inc.

Liesman, Steve. 1989. Sarasota Renames Tract for Carlton. Sarasota Herald Tribune. November 22, 1989.

Lobeck, Dan. 1999. Comments from Transcript of the October 4, 1999 Public Forum for the Urban Land Institute Advisory Service Panel. Sarasota. Urban Land Institute.

Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Longman, Philip. 1994. Sprawl. Florida Trend 37(8): 40-47.

McCann, Barbara A. and Reid Ewing. 2003. Measuring the Health Effects of Sprawl: A National Analysis of Physical Activity, Obesity and Chronic Disease. Washington D.C. Smart Growth America, Surface Transportation Project

McDonough, Michael. 1998. Selling Sarasota: Architecture and Propaganda in a 1920’s Boom Town in The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts. 23-Florida Theme Issue. Miami Beach: The Wolfsonian-Florida International University and The Wolfson Foundation of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, Inc.

McKanic, Patricia Ann. 1992. Impact Fees: What's Fair? Sarasota Herald Tribune. June 22, 1992.

Manasota-88. 1984. Preliminary Recommendations to the S.E. Sector Task Force. February 22, 1984.

Manasota-88. 1995. Manasota-88: A Project for Environmental Quality 1968-2088. March 1995. (A Newsletter of the Manasota-88 organization)

Manasota-88. 1996. Manasota-88: A Project for Environmental Quality 1968-2088. March 1996. (A Newsletter of the Manasota-88 organization)

211

Manasota-88. 2000. Manasota-88: A Project for Environmental Quality 1968-2088. June 2000. (A Newsletter of the Manasota-88 organization)

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1973. A Policy To Encourage Optimum Population And Urban Growth In Manatee County, Florida. Adopted January 23, 1973. Bradenton.

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1981-A. The Manatee Plan: Technical Analysis, amended October 27, 1981. Bradenton.

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1981-B. The Manatee Plan Policy Document, Ordinance 81-20. Adopted October 27, 1981. Bradenton.

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1985. The Manatee Plan, Long Range Capital Improvements Program, 1985-86. Bradenton.

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1986-A. Southeast Area Land Use, Design, Public Services and Environmental Recommendations – Final Report. Adopted May 8, 1986 by Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. Bradenton.

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission. 1986-B. Southeast Area Workshop, November 26, 1986. Manatee County Courthouse. Bradenton.

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1987-A. Evers Reservoir Watershed Plan, Approved December 23, 1987. Bradenton.

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1987-B. Resolution No. 87-276, Resolution of the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners Selecting a Future Land Use Concept for the Revision of Manatee County’s Comprehensive Plan. Bradenton

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1987-C. Resolution No. 87-276, Resolution of the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners Selecting a Recommended Future Land Use Concept for the Revision of Manatee County’s Comprehensive Plan. Bradenton

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1988. The Manatee Plan Policy Document (as amended 1980-1988 from Ordinance 81-20 on October 27, 1981 to Ordinance 88-20 on May 12, 1988. Bradenton.

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1989. The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, May 15, 1989. Prepared by Florida Land Design & Engineering, Inc. Adopted by the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. Bradenton.

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. 1998. The 2020 Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, April 2, 1998.

212

Manatee County Planning and Development Department. 1978. Background Paper for the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan – Land Use, March 1, 1978. Bradenton.

Manatee County Planning and Development Department. 1981. The Manatee Plan: Technical Analysis. October 27, 1981. Bradenton.

Manatee County Planning and Development Department. 1983-A. Development Cost Study: May 1983. Bradenton.

Manatee County Planning and Development Department. 1983-B. Southeast Manatee County Development Issues. February 1983. Bradenton.

Manatee County Planning and Development Department. 1984. North County Gateway. Study prepared for the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County. December 12, 1984. Bradenton.

Manatee County Planning and Development Department. 1986-A. Southeast Area Task Force Implementation Issues Analysis, April 23, 1986. Bradenton.

Manatee County Planning and Development Department. 1986-B. Memo to Board of County Commissioners 12/18/86 for PDR-80-2 (Phase II) TARA. Bradenton.

Manatee County Planning and Development Department. 1998. The Context. Bradenton.

Manatee County Planning Commission. 1978. Transcript of the Proceedings of the Manatee County Planning Commission Public Meeting March 17, 1978 to consider the Position Paper of the County-Wide Steering Committee for the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. Bradenton.

Manatee County Planning Commission. 1987. Resolution Number 87-287: Resolution of the Manatee County Planning Commission Selecting a Recommended Future Land Use Concept for the Revision of Manatee County's Comprehensive Plan. October 14, 1987. Bradenton

Manatee County Planning Department. 1973. OPUG…A Growth Policy for Manatee County, Florida: Ideal Growth Today & Tomorrow! May 1973. Bradenton.

Martin, Rory. 1999. Comments provided at the Community Input Forum (for the Urban Land Institute) on October 4, 1999. Sarasota.

Mason, Jennifer. 1996. Qualitative Researching. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Mason, Nick. 1984. Commissioners criticize growth limits near river. Bradenton Herald. May 22, 1984.

Mason, Nick. 1987. How do you spell Manatee? G-R-O-W-T-H. In Manatee ’88: A supplement to the Bradenton Herald. February 1, 1987.

213

Mason, Nick. 1990. Believe it or not, growth will slow. In Manatee ’88: A Supplement to the Bradenton Herald. January 28, 1990.

McKee, David L. and Gerald H. Smith. 1972. Environmental Diseconomies in Suburban Expansion. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 31(2): 181-188.

McWilliams, Scott. 1984. Market Study of Population and Housing in Manatee County. Study prepared for the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners by Scott McWilliams Marketing Services, Inc. in association with Balanzategui & Company.

Mieszkowski, Peter and Edwin S. Mills. 1993. The Causes of Metropolitan Suburbanization. Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (3): 135-147.

Milo Smith + Associates, Inc. 1973. First Phase Proposed Land Use and Development Regulations, Manatee County, Florida, June 1973. (Not Adopted) Prepared for and under the general direction of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Tampa.

Milo Smith + Associates, Inc. 1975. Future Land Use Plan, Manatee County, Florida, Year 2000. Prepared under contract with Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. Bradenton.

Moore, Terry and Paul Thorsnes. 1994 The Transportation/Land Use Connection: A Framework for Practical Policy (PAS 448). Chicago: APA Planning Advisory Service

Morell, Michael and Bob Keating. 1994. Rule 9J-5 Revisited: Hearing Officer Upholds Controversial Urban Sprawl Rules Proposed by Department of Community Affairs. Unpublished draft.

Nelson, A. C. 1995. Growth Management and the Savings-And-Loan Bailout The Urban Lawyer 27(1): 71-85.

Nelson, Arthur C. and James B. Duncan with Clancy J. Mullen and Kirk R. Bishop. 1995. Growth Management Principles and Practices. Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association.

Network Communications. 2000. Senior Selections, Mature Living Choices, Florida's Gulf Coast. Fall 2000. Sarasota: Network Communications, Inc.

Odum, Howard T., Elisabeth C. Odum, and Mark T. Brown. 1998. Environment and Society in Florida. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

O’Toole, Randal. 2001. The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths: How Smart Growth Will Harm American Cities. Bandon, Oregon: Thoreau Institute.

214

O’Sullivan, Jr., Maurice and Jack C. Lane, editors. 1991. The Florida Reader: Visions of Paradise from 1530 to the Present. Sarasota, Florida: Pineapple Press, Inc.

Pacione, Michael. 1990. Private Profit and Public Interest in the Residential Development Process: a Case Study of Conflict in the Urban Fringe. Journal of Rural Studies 6(1): 103-116.

Painter, Joe. 1997. Regulation, Regime, and Practice in Urban Politics in Reconstructing Urban Regime Theory: Regulating Urban Politics in a Global Economy. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Peiser, Richard. 1989. Density and Urban Sprawl. Land Economics 65 (3): 193-204.

Pelham, Thomas G. 1979. State Land-Use Planning and Regulation: Florida, the Model Code, and Beyond. Lexington, Massachusetts. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company.

Peiser, Richard. 1990. Who Plans America? Planners or Developers? Journal of the American Planning Association 56 (4): 496-503.

Peterson, Rodney D. 1991. Political Economy and American Capitalism. Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publications.

PHH Fantus Corporation. 1988-A. Sarasota County Future Land Use Analysis Phase I. Sarasota County

PHH Fantus Corporation. 1988-B. Sarasota County Interstate Regional Office Park Analysis Phase II. Sarasota County

Pittman, Craig. 1989. Environmental Issues Raised Over Community. Sarasota Herald Tribune. June 5, 1989. Sarasota.

Popenoe, David. 1970. Urban Sprawl: Some Neglected Sociological Considerations. Sociology and Social Research: An International Journal 63 (2): 255-268.

Post Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. 1994. Preliminary Engineering Report Central Water & Sewer Service, Sarasota County. Sarasota.

Pratt, A.C. 1995. Putting critical realism to work: the practical implications for geographical research. Progress in Human Geography 19 (1): 61-74.

Pred, Allan. 1984. Place as Historically Contingent Process: Structuration and the Time- Geography of Becoming Places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74(2): 279-297.

215

Public Facilities Citizens Advisory Committee. 1988. Recommendations of the Public Facilities Citizens Advisory Committee. Presented to Manatee County Planning Commission on April 18, 1988. Bradenton.

Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. The Costs of Sprawl. Detailed Cost Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Retsinas 1998. Visions vary for development east of I-75. Sarasota Herald Tribune. November 16, 1998.

Retsinas 1999-A. Group Studying Growth to Give Report. Sarasota Herald Tribune. January 8, 1999.

Retsinas 1999-B. Keeping up with development. Sarasota Herald Tribune. January 20, 1999.

Retsinas 1999-C. I-75: Advisory Group Unable to Agree. Sarasota Herald Tribune. February 16, 1999.

Retsinas 1999-D. Law may stunt tall houses' growth. Sarasota Herald Tribune. February 19, 1999.

Retsinas 1999-E. Debate over growth east of I-75 enters new phase. Sarasota Herald Tribune. February 19, 1999.

Retsinas 1999-F. Impact fee increase effective Monday. Sarasota Herald Tribune. June 23. 1999.

Retsinas. 1999-G. Majority fancies growth. Sarasota Herald Tribune. June 25, 1999.

Rhodes, Bob. 1988. Letter to Bob Nave, Florida Department of Community Affairs, December 15, 1988. Unpublished public record.

Sams, Jim. 1993. In Updating Land-Use Plan. Sarasota Herald Tribune. February 22, 1993. Sarasota.

Sarasota County. 1969. Concepts and Substance of the General Plan, 2nd Revised Edition. Sarasota.

Sarasota County. 1971. General Plan: Conceptual Land Uses, Policies for Growth. Sarasota.

Sarasota County. 1974. Long Range Planning. May, 1974. Sarasota.

Sarasota County. 1991. Proceedings of the Sarasota County Government Growth Management Conference. September 30, 1991. Sarasota.

216

Sarasota County 1999. Urban Land Institute Briefing Book: Sarasota County, Florida, U.S.A. Sarasota. Sarasota County Government.

Sarasota County. 1999. Sarasota County: Past, Present and Future. Sarasota. Sarasota County Government.

Sarasota County. 2000-A. Directions for the Future: Sarasota County Resource Management Area System. Sarasota.

Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners. 2000. Resolution No. 2000-230: Endorsement of the Directions for the Future Resource Management Areas System Approach to Growth Management in Sarasota County including Exhibit A: Directions for the Future: Resource Management Area Organizing Concepts and Principles. Sarasota.

Sarasota County Committee of One Hundred. 1984. The Sarasota Distinction: A Business Profile. Sarasota.

Sarasota Committee of One Hundred. 1987. The Sarasota Distinction: A Business Profile. Sarasota

Sarasota County Economic Development Board. 1999-A. Good Life. Good Business. Sarasota Florida. Sarasota County Economic Development Board.

Sarasota County Economic Development Board. 1999-B. 1999 Annual Report. Sarasota County Economic Development Board.

Sarasota County Economic Development Commission and the Sarasota County Committee of 100. 1997. An Assessment and Update of Sarasota County's Economic Development Plan. Vail, Colorado. Growth Strategies Organization.

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1975. Sarasota County Land Use Plan. Sarasota.

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1979. Observations on Various Growth Management Techniques and Recommendations for Future Action. Sarasota.

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1980. Apoxsee: Sarasota County's Comprehensive Framework for the Future. Sarasota

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1981. Apoxsee: Sarasota County's Comprehensive Framework for the Future. Sarasota

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1986. Apoxsee: Sarasota County's Comprehensive Framework for the Future. Sarasota

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1986. Evaluation and Appraisal Report: Apoxsee, Sarasota County's Comprehensive Framework for the Future - Staff Draft. Sarasota

217

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1985. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Office Files. Sarasota.

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1987. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Office Files. Sarasota.

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1988. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Office Files. Sarasota.

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1988. Apoxsee: The Revised and Updated Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota.

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1996-A. Evaluation and Appraisal Report for Apoxsee, The Revised and Updated Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota.

Sarasota County Planning Department. 1997. Apoxsee. The Revised and Updated Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota.

Sarasota County Planning Department 1999. Amendments to Apoxsee, The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota. Sarasota County Planning Department.

Sarasota County Planning Department. 2000. Directions for the Future: Resource Management Area Organizing Concepts and Principles. Sarasota.

Sarasota Herald Tribune. 1983. To Prevent A Horror. (Editorial). August 18, 1983.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune. 1984. No Time To Retreat. (Editorial). April 14, 1984.

Sarasota Herald Tribune. 1999. Majority Fancies Growth. June 25, 1999.

Sarasota Herald Tribune. 2003. Imagine Manatee: no big surprises, City and county officials say they support most of the results of a resident’s visioning project. Published September 3, 2003. (http://www.sarasotaherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20030903&Category=NEWS&ArtN o=309030570&SectionCat=&Template=printart)

Sarasota Multi-Stakeholder Group. 1997. Visions and Values for the Area East of Interstate 75. Sarasota.

Sarasota Multi-Stakeholder Group. 1999. Second Report on the Area East of Interstate 75. Sarasota.

Saunders, Peter. 1979. The question of the local state. Urban Politics: A Sociological Interpretation. London: Hutchinson.

218

Sayer, Andrew 1992. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. London and New York: Routledge.

Sayer, R.A. 1979. Understanding Urban Models Versus Understanding Cities. Environment and Planning A 11: 853-862.

Schwandt, Thomas A. 2001. Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry, second edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Select Committee on Growth Management, Florida House of Representatives. 1983. Facing Florida's Future: Solutions from the Saddlebrook Conference: Change, Challenge and Response. Tallahassee.

Shopes, Rich. 2000. Demand builds for premium office space. Sarasota Herald Tribune: Business Horizons. October 15, 2000.

Sierra Club. 1998. The Dark Side of the American Dream: The Costs and Consequences of Suburban Sprawl. http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/

Sierra Club. 1999. The 1999 Sierra Club Sprawl Report: Solving Sprawl, Sierra Club Rates the States. http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report99/

Sinclair, Robert. 1967. Von Thunen and Urban Sprawl. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 57: 72-87.

Skocpol, T. 1985. Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In Bringing the State Back In. P.B. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, and T. Skocpol, eds., pp. 3-37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smally, Wellford & Nalven and Russell & Axon. 1977-a. Sarasota County 201 Facilities Plan Appendices. Sarasota.

Smally, Wellford & Nalven and Russell & Axon. 1977-b. Sarasota County 201 Facilities Plan: Preliminary Draft (subsequently approved). Sarasota.

Soja, Edward W. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.

Soja. 1980. The Socio-Spatial Dialectic. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 70 (2): 207-225.

Southeast Task Force. 1983-A. Meeting Notes, Week #4, September 8, 1983. Bradenton.

Southeast Task Force. 1983-B. Meeting Notes, Week #5, September 15, 1983. Bradenton.

Southeast Task Force. 1983-C. Meeting Notes, Week #8, October 6, 1983. Bradenton.

219

Southeast Task Force. 1983-D. Meeting Notes, Week #10, October 21, 1983. Bradenton.

Southeast Task Force. 1984. Final Report on Land Use, Public Improvements, and Funding: August 3, 1984. Bradenton.

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. 1978. Land Use Policy Plan. April 1, 1978. Fort Myers, Florida.

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. 1987. Southwest Florida: Regional Goals, Issues, and Policies, Part Two of the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan for Southwest Florida. Ft. Myers, Florida.

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. 1995. Southwest Florida: Regional Goals, Issues, and Policies, Volume Two of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for Southwest Florida. Ft. Myers, Florida.

Staeheli, Kodras and Colin Flint. 1997. State Devolution in America, Implications for a Diverse Society. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Steiner. 1994. Sprawl can be good. Planning July 1994.

Steering Committee. 1978-A. Steering Committee Meeting Notes, January 26, 1978. Bradenton.

Steering Committee. 1978-B. County-Wide Steering Committee for the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan: Executive Summary, February 16, 1978. Bradenton.

Storper, Michael and Richard Walker. 1989. The Capitalist Imperative: Territory, Technology, and Industrial Growth. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Tabors, Richard. 1976. Land Use and the Pipe: Planning for Sewerage. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1989. Impediments to Infill Development: A Final Report for the Infill Subcommittee of the Governor's Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns. Orlando, Florida.

Tara Development, Ltd. 1980. Response to Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Questions on the proposed Tara DRI, originally posed in 1976. February 7, 1980.

Teaford, Jon C. 1997. Post-Suburbia: Government and Politics in the Edge Cities. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Tett, Alison and Jeanne M. Wolfe. 1991. Discourse Analysis and City Plans in Journal of Planning Education and Research. 10(3): 195-200.

220

Thomas, Sid. 1983. Boyd Corp. Announces 600-Acre Development. Sarasota Herald-Tribune. December 13, 1983.

Thomson, Rod. 1996-A. Impact fees a sticking point. Sarasota Herald Tribune. February 7, 1996.

Thomson, Rod. 1996-B. Sarasota County passes increase in impact fees. Sarasota Herald Tribune. July 31, 1996.

Thomson, Rod. 1998-A. Patterson says she will run for County Commission Seat. Sarasota Herald Tribune. March 26, 1998.

Thomson, Rod. 1998-B. Commission hopeful emphasizes growth. Sarasota Herald Tribune. April 18, 1998.

Thomson, Rod. 1998-C. Gold Course Homes OK'd. Sarasota Herald Tribune. May 6, 1998.

Tiebout, C. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy 64: 416-24.

Todd, Mark. 1984. Growth Task Force Attracts Criticism. Sarasota Herald-Tribune. April 4, 1984.

Urban Land Institute. 1999-A. ULI Forum: Sarasota Advisory Services Panel. Sarasota.

Urban Land Institute. 1999-B. Sarasota County, Florida: Strategies for Managing Future Growth: Shaping a Future for Sarasota County to Maintain and Enhance Its Quality of Life. An Advisory Services Panel Report. Washington: Urban Land Institute.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1952. Census of Population: 1950: Volume 1. Number of Inhabitants. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics in 2000 Census of Population and Housing - Florida. Issued May 21, 2001. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Vaughn, Cynthia. 1991. Oh Give Me Land, Lots of Land. Bradenton Herald. April 15, 1991.

Vincent, A. 1987. Theories of the State. Oxford: Blackwell.

Warren, Sarah. 1991-A1. The Ranch's Range: From Affordable Housing to Neo-Traditional Town. Sarasota Herald Tribune. May 27, 1991. Sarasota.

Warren, Sarah. 1991-A2. Development, Inside Out. Sarasota Herald Tribune. May 27, 1991.

221

Warren, Sarah. 1991-B. The Ranch’s Range: From Affordable Housing to Neo-Traditional Town. Sarasota Herald Tribune. May 27, 1991. Sarasota.

Warren, Sarah. 1991-C. Land Matters. Sarasota Herald Tribune.

Warren, Sarah. 1991-D. Land Matters: None of Players Likes Land-Use Game. Sarasota Herald Tribune.

Warner, Kee and Harvey Molotch. 1995. Power to build: how development persists despite local controls Urban Affairs Review 30(3): 378-406.

Weitz, Jerry. 1999. Sprawl Busting: State Programs to Guide Growth. Chicago. Planners Press, American Planning Association.

White, Dale. 1998. Board Endorses Eastern Manatee Developments. Sarasota Herald Tribune. May 15, 1990.

Whyte, William. 1957. Urban Sprawl in The Exploding Metropolis. The Editors of Fortune Magazine. Doubleday Anchor Books. Garden City, New York

Widman, Miriam. 1984. Area Task Force Forecasts Rapid Industrial Growth in the Bradenton Herald, June 12, 1984. Bradenton.

Wilford, Richard A. 1984. Memo to Ed Storms, Acting Director, Planning and Development from Richard Wilford, Director, Manatee County Public Utilities Department / Subject, Manasota 88 Letter of Concerns to the Southeast Sector Task Force, July 12, 1984. Unpublished.

Wilkison, Dennis. 2001. How We Got Here: The Evolution of the Resource Management Area System in Sarasota County. Unpublished Notes.

Williams, Donald C. 2000. Urban Sprawl: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.

222

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Robert Allan Pennock

EDUCATION: Doctor of Philosophy in Geography Florida State University, 2004

Masters of Science in Planning Florida State University, 1982

Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology University of Florida, 1977

PROFESSIONAL Urban Planning Consultant EXPERIENCE: July 1994 to 2004

Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management

Chief, Bureau of Local Planning July 1990 to July 1994

Plan Review Administrator December 1988 to June 1990

Planning Manager February 1987 to November 1988

Planner IV July 1986 to January 1987

Division of Emergency Management

Various planning positions June 1981 to May 1986

PROFESSIONAL Member: Association of American Geographers ASSOCIATIONS Member: American Planning Association

Member: American Institute of Certified Planners

223