You are here

A Florida Keys National Park? Good Conservation or Florida Bail-out?

Share

Published Date

September 29, 2008

Florida's southern keys. NPS photo.

Officials in Monroe County, Florida, which includes the Florida Keys, are caught in a classic land management dilemma—how to manage growth in an orderly manner and pay for the high cost of protecting environmentally sensitive lands in an area that is ripe for development. One solution is a controversial proposal by local officials to ask the National Park Service to acquire some of the property.

Here's a little background to help understand the issues. In 1975 the State of Florida designated the Florida Keys as an "Area of Critical State Concern" due to the area's environmental sensitivity and high potential for development. An underlying issue is the need to limit population grown to levels that permit a timely evacuation of the Keys when a hurricane threatens.

In the face of what the county describes as explosive growth since the 1980s, local officials have adopted a complex series of ordinances that attempt to identify areas with the highest environmental sensitivity. Development of those sites is restricted through allocation of building permits. That process has pitted conservationists and the county against developers and some private landowners.

At the heart of the issue are more than 7,300 acres, divided among over 6,000 vacant lots that are included in the county's development restrictions. The county has acquired some of these tracts by negotiated purchases and several others through very expensive condemnation proceedings. Landowner rights advocates claim the government is paying far less than the lots are worth.

There's a lot of money at stake. Earlier this year, a jury awarded over $5 million to owners of a 22-acre parcel that state appraisers had valued at $100,000. The county has already raised property taxes to help pay for expensive litigation and land acquisition, and local officials estimate the cost of acquiring the remaining land at $1.2 billion.

That price tag is clearly beyond the reach of local coffers, so county officials will float a new idea at a meeting this week with state officials: ask the National Park Service to acquire the property.

The concept has not been accepted favorably by people like James Mattson, who describes himself on his blog as "a scientist turned property-rights litigator." He claims the value of the land in question is closer to $7 billion and is urging owners to either hold out for an eminent domain suit or to file their own lawsuit against the county and state.

It remains to be seen whether the National Park Service will be drawn into a very expensive and clearly contentious battle. There's no question that land and adjacent coastal waters with scenic and natural values, including several endangered species, are at stake. The larger question is whether the area involved meets the criteria for inclusion in the national park system—and whether the taxpayer can afford the tab.

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

Ooof, a tough issue. Of course, I'm sure no one in Florida is trying to profit off a real estate scheme. That's soooo unlike South Floridians :dripping with overwhelming sarcasm:.

Realistically, not many of these islands can sustain much development. That's just a simple fact. Not that there aren't Americans living in unsustainable places....

================================================

My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com


Maybe, the area is question should be bought by the BLM and/or the State.


I am the James Mattson you refer to above, and I disagree with the notion that the state and local governments are trying to turn the Florida Keys into a National Park. Having lived in the Keys for the past 25 years, and practiced land use law the entire time, it is my opinion that we are experiencing the common problem of "homevoters" trying to prevent new arrivals in the community. It has nothing to do with deer, rats, mice, and bunnies. It is all about stopping growth, and has been that way since the 1992 adoption of a rate-of-development ordinance, adopted on a specious theory that the Keys could not evacuate in a timely manner when threatened with hurricane-force winds. The County Commission actually forced the Florida DOT to DROP a plan -- already funded -- that would have cured the imaginary "deficiency" by 2000. This they accomplished by incorporating a provision in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan that prohibited the widening of US-1, the only access/exit highway through the Keys. We are anxiously awaiting the completion of these road improvements, although last week the idiots on our County Commission adopted a resolution demanding that DOT halt its current program to build a third outbound traffic lane on Key Largo -- as recommended by DOT consultants in 2001 -- as one of the major components in reaching the imaginary 1992 clearance time objective.

Only after the tyrannical, no-growth, majority realized that highways could be improved, did this "interest" in endangered species develop. Now, it's "save the animals" in public, but "save my property value" in reality. Monroe County is the only Florida County that has seen a drop in population over the past two decades. The reason is simple, rate-of-development restrictions that could not have been implemented in the more populous (or less property-rich) counties. Monroe County has the lowest property tax rate of all the counties in Florida, because it has the highest property tax assessments. We are "richer" (property-wise) than even Palm Beach or Collier Counties.

The Keys are not the next Everglades National Park. The Keys are more like Cape Cod, the Colorado ski villages, and Santa Barbara, California, than Yosemite National Park. Our problem is simply one of an entrenched and vocal majority, that regularly elects a basket of compliant County Commissioners, all of whom would prefer that the bridges be blown up and nobody else be allowed to relocate to the Florida Keys. So far, these people have been successful in keeping the population down. But now they are facing very substantial increases in their property taxes to pay for the remaining vacant land. So, why not, they float the absurd notion of turning every other lot in the Florida Keys (not their homes, of course) into a National Park. Give me a break!


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your urgent support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.