The words “hometown” and “democracy” each carry their own connotations. In the State of Florida, the phrase “Hometown Democracy” uniquely connotes direct citizen control over major land use and growth decisions, bypassing elected officials. Hometown Democracy first appeared in Florida as an initiative proposing a constitutional amendment, centering on the assumption that Florida’s growth-management controls were both illconceived and detrimental. Supporters of the constitutional amendment emphasized its ability to place the power to amend and approve the state-mandated local comprehensive plans with the voters. Challengers of the amendment remained apprehensive, even more so than with foregoing pregnant-pig or highspeed-rail amendments. When the constitutional amendment failed to receive enough signatures to be placed on the 2007 ballot, local initiatives ensued, placing similar measures in local charters.
Page 1 of 3
In the United States, the government that most directly affects people’s daily lives is local government (counties and municipalities). Anytime people turn on the water; walk down the sidewalk; drive on the streets or take transit; send their children to school; go to parks, recreation centers, and libraries; record their deeds; open their businesses; or build their homes; they deal with local government. Code enforcement is a function of local government and affects people’s daily lives. Its purpose is to enhance the quality of life and economy of local government by protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Code violations “run with the land,” and subsequent purchasers can be held responsible for bringing the property into compliance and can be liable for payment of a lien, interest, and costs.
Local governments in Florida have adopted ordinances authorizing special magistrates to hold hearings and assess fines against violators in their respective jurisdictions. This Article discusses defenses and issues in code enforcement proceedings to provide guidance to special magistrates and private- and publicsector lawyers for fair, just, and equitable proceedings.
In 2004, Florida experienced the most active hurricane season since weather records were first recorded in 1851. Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne and Tropical Storm Bonnie damaged the beach and dune system, inland structures and property, and infrastructure in most of Florida’s coastal counties. Similarly, in 2005, Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, and Wilma and Tropical Storms Arlene and Tammy exacerbated erosion conditions throughout the State and substantially reduced the width of Florida’s beaches available for public access.
Equitable adoption affects children every year, but most people are not even aware of it. When a person dies without a will, that person dies intestate, and the probate code dictates how to distribute the person’s estate. When a child is the legally adopted child of an intestate decedent, rather than the natural, biological child, the code treats that legally adopted child as the decedent’s biological child for purposes of intestate succession. However, there is a complication when the deceased parent never formally adopted the child. Before examining the legal ramifications of equitable adoption, one must understand the situation in which equitable adoption arises—the situation in which the law must bend. Equitable adoption can take many forms, but in order to put them into practice, one must understand the basic concept.
Mitigation banking has raised the bar on compensatory mitigation by instituting accountability, financial assurances, and regular monitoring. The mitigation banking industry has improved mitigation practices throughout the United States, improvements which have carried over to other nations. Marketbased systems that transform resources into fungible commodities are an invaluable means of working toward a more ecologically sustainable future. However, as the enthusiasm surrounding market approaches continues to grow, we need to be cautious of overly relying on mitigation banks to protect broader ecosystem services and meet sustainability targets.
As former members of the NRC Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, we were encouraged to see that the federal agencies seriously considered our report and issued a regulation in April 2008 that seeks to implement our recommendations. This Article offers our thoughts on the new regulation in light of our report, as well as patterns and rates of wetland loss since 2001. After providing a brief background on the Clean Water Act and the NRC report, we examine the extent to which the new regulation incorporates several of our primary recommendations. In particular, we consider whether and how the regulation addresses our recommendations concerning the watershed approach; operational guidelines and performance standards; and the treatment of mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, and permittee-responsible mitigation. While the new regulation represents significant progress, its effectiveness (or lack thereof) will depend on implementation in the field. Will the agencies have sufficient resources and the institutional will to assess adequately proposed plans and ensure compliance? As the agencies proceed, we urge them to renew an emphasis on avoidance of wetland impacts. We also urge them to apply adaptive management principles to the new rule: evaluate and adjust in light of experience.
On April 10, 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly published final regulations defining standards and procedures for authorizing compensatory mitigation of impacts to aquatic resources that the Corps permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Prior to these final regulations, Section 404’s compensatory mitigation program was administered under a mish-mash of guidances, inter-agency memoranda, and other policy documents issued over the span of seventeen years. Although motivated primarily by the need to bring the program under one comprehensive regulatory framework, the final regulations also introduce ecosystem services into the mitigation decisionmaking standards for the first time by requiring that “compensatory mitigation should be located . . . where it is most likely to successfully replace lost functions and services.” Easily overlooked in the lengthy Federal Register document, this is a potentially significant development, but it is unlikely to gain policy traction without substantial research into the development of efficient and reliable wetland ecosystem service assessment methods. To help orient such research efforts, this Article provides the following: (1) background on the compensatory mitigation program and ecosystem services prior to promulgation of the final regulations; (2) an overview of how the final regulations integrate ecosystem service analysis into compensatory mitigation decisions;and (3) suggestions for a research agenda to support implementation of that feature of the rule.
While we are now lauding and analyzing the new mitigation regulations, we should not forget that they were compelled by Congress. There is a statute behind these important regulations, which directed establishment of a “level playing field” for mitigation providers. In evaluating the new mitigation regulations, we cannot lose sight of the statute and its background.
Thirty-six years after the enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its Sections 301 and 404 program regulating the discharge of dredged and fill material into aquatic systems, it has become glaringly apparent that mitigation has been largely unsuccessful at replacing either the extent or functions of the aquatic resources destroyed or degraded by such discharges. By now, it should be obvious that, wherever possible, avoidance of impacts to existing water resources is the wisest environmental protection policy. Yet in practice, avoidance has received far too much lip service and far too little practical application. Recent agency rules issued to govern mitigation activities continue what can only be described as a “cockeyed optimist” approach to aquatic resources permitting—one that is destined to lead to further deterioration of the nation’s aquatic resource base.
Half of the world’s wetlands were lost in the past century. Twenty percent of the world’s freshwater fish are extinct, threatened, or endangered. In addition, dams and canals fragment almost sixty percent of the world’s largest rivers. The United States alone is losing natural land at an alarming rate, with over two million acres of land lost every year to development. According to the United States Geological Survey, Louisiana has lost 1,900 square miles of wetlands in the past seven decades—an area larger than the state of Rhode Island. Draining the wetlands to make way for roads, malls, beach communities, marinas, and condominiums has depleted the shoreline. Louisiana, in fact, loses twenty-five square miles of coast every year.