Media misperceives Martinez Doctrine - Schools, property tax and snafu
 
April 2, 2004

By Doug Doudney, President

Coalition for Property Rights
 
 
Excerpted with permission from the Brevard Insider
 
Malabar, Florida
 
 
To submit a Letter to the Editor: ESCMC@aol.com
          
The media is angry about Orlando's approval of a project without deference to the Martinez Doctrine. 
 
The school crowding policy is one of the signature property rights issues in central Florida today, and CPR Weekly Update has only dealt with it once previously in our 2 1/2 year existence. Some myths need to be dispelled.
         
First; Martinez Doctrine (MD) was not designed to be permanent regulation, only a stopgap to solve a crisis. Mr. Martinez and his minions said that -- if only a funding source were put in place -- this harsh step wouldn't be needed.
 
Martinez Doctrine is not even a law -- indeed, if enacted as law, MD would be illegal unless specific steps were taken to enact "concurrency" (see below).
 
MD is a shortcut around concurrency and was designed to answer an immediate need, not to be codified into law.
         
Second; MD IS NOT CONCURRENCY. Most are familiar with concurrency laws requiring developers to be sure adequate public facilities are in place before development can occur.
 
Concurrency law now applies to sewer, water, roads, fire protection, but not schools. This is as it was laid out in the state's Growth Management Act (GMA). 
        
A mechanism to enact school concurrency was in GMA, but most counties (including Orange) figured it was too hard to do by the law, so they didn't pursue it.
         
Concurrency, although possibly onerous on landowners -- but not to developers, because they can move to another site; a landowner can't move his land -- also places some responsibility on government.
 
If your road is not concurrent when you request entitlements. The government MUST produce a "FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE PLAN" regarding how it is going to bring the infrastructure up to a level where it can serve your demand within a reasonable and set length of time. 
 
MD DOES NOT. 
 
MD places no accountability on the school board to meet the demand -- it simply gives it the power to say "NO." 
 
Summary: The big difference between concurrency and MD is governmental ACCOUNTABILITY!
 
Concurrency is not a perfect plan, but at least it balances some of the burden.
         
Why didn't the GMA include school concurrency? Simple.  As set up, school boards are a different kind of governmental animal; they are autonomous, independent of county and city governments.
 
Your school boards don't answer to county commission or city hall.
 
The school board is elected separately from, and its budget isn't controlled by, county government. 
 
The writer believes school boards were set up this way so they could focus on education with as little politics as possible.
 
First, this wise system would be compromised by concurrency.           
 
Second, experience proves it's compromised even more by MD.
         
Third, your school board is not a land planning agency. 
 
The writer knows firsthand about NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard] neighbors politicking school board members to work against zoning on certain sites based on NIMBY impulses rather than capacity. 
 
School board members are under pressure to decide where housing should go, rather than focusing on educating kids. With the challenges Orange County schools face in running this $1.5 BILLION (annual budget) empire, they really don't need the pressure politics of land planning on their plates!  It's unfair to both school board members and staff.
         
Fourth, the four-year history of MD is one of the school board simply saying "not enough" to proposals.
 
It routinely takes a year or more to achieve the "School Capacity Enhancement Agreement" as required by MD.
         
The essence of the agreements with developers is an extraction of additional impact fees (paid in advance). The writer understands these fees become general funds, with no guarantee funds will be applied to schools in the areas affected by the new development.
         
Fifth, MD encourages dreaded "Urban Sprawl." The subject of much demagoguery, MD makes it easier for large, outlying parcels to cope than for infill tracts, which tend to be smaller.
 
Sprawl is no issue for believers in Property Rights, simply because we understand today's sprawl is tomorrow's infill, but many proponents of MD are also those who decry sprawl the loudest.
         
Sixth, MD is four years old. It's had plenty of time to work.
 
Where are the success stories? If it's a great plan, why isn't the crisis over?
 
Could the problem lie elsewhere? Why aren't our local leaders asking questions to find the right solutions?
         
Seventh, any vacant property has paid school tax since there was a tax.
 
Just as about 40% of everyone's home tax bill is for schools, so goes the same portion of taxes on all properties.
 
Can it be that a government can tell a property owner "You sir, may not use your land, because we don't want to serve you with schools, but you, sir, must continue to pay your school tax"? 
 
Most vacant lands pay enormous taxes but demand little or no services until developed.
         
As this column has said before, sometimes government services get stretched. 
 
Sometimes a moratorium is the only way to aid stressed infrastructure.
 
When necessary, moratoria must have definite end-dates and be for the purpose of planning and creating a way to meet a need. 
 
MD does none of that -- it simply tells the school board "we will wait for you, take your time while we languish."
         
The property in question had worked with the school system for 18 months -- without result.
 
The funding Mr. Martinez dreamed of for the schools is in place (plus more).
 
MD has become a bureaucratic nightmare, and it's time for a change.
         
Commissioners Lynum, Page, Vargo and Wyman should be congratulated for having the courage to make the right decision, even though they must have known that our local media was going to go into its predictable frenzy.
         
One final little irony: The landowner of the property is Universal Studios.
 
Universal is locked in a bitter battle against Orange County because the county is trying to take away its (and others') right to reduce taxes on vacant lands through the Agricultural exemption.
 
Isn't it beautiful that so many are cheering the county in its quest for more land tax, yet criticizing the city for allowing land use on the same Owner's property?
 
In other words, Universal should pay more tax, but not be able to use its land!
 
The Brevard Insider is published 5 times a week except holidays at 1106 Ramblebrook St., Malabar, Florida 32950.  321-956-0815.  Fax: 321-956-8762.  ESCMC@aol.com Copyright 2004.  Publisher Pond Press, Inc.  Editor:  Edward S. Clark.  Assistant editor:  Dan Warrensford.  Contributing editors Doug Doudney, J. D. Tucker, Michael Moehle, Bob Brewster, David Russell, Chuck Morley, Bill Love, Julie Kay Smithson.  Contrarian:  Robert D. Clark. Webmaster and  Electronic distribution:  Tim Wooley.  Subscription price $6.50 per month.