Almost every city on the coast of Florida has established a community redevelopment area and is pursuing aggressive development policies in collaboration with developers and land speculators to transform their beach areas into hell holes of commercialization and high-end condo properties. As Deerfield Beach residents know only too well, along with this comes redevelopment politics, in common parlance known as corruption. There are exceptions.

A case in point is Surfside, Florida, a small town located near Miami and Miami Beach. It is an affluent town compared to Deerfield Beach, with a medium income of around $51,000. Surfside has about 5,000 residents and occupies less than 1/2 square mile on the barrier island. As such, it would certainly be an attractive target for high-end development of the type underway in our beach area.

Voters in Surfside have chosen to preserve the town's environment over excessive development. The official web site explains the community's redevelopment philosophy:

"Special interests that profit from overdevelopment push for publicly funded infrastructure projects and zoning changes that serve to facilitate more and more development, and the cycle continues. Overdevelopment is spiraling out of control in Southeast Florida.

"In some municipal and county jurisdictions, economic development for the few often outweighs the best interests of the many -- the people. Meanwhile, Surfside has consistently stood as an example of how a municipal government can reject special interests and succeed in focusing upon the continual protection, enhancement and beautification of a community. We remain steadfastly dedicated to those policies and principles and all municipal decisions, plans and operations are governed by a commitment to properly balancing individual rights and the community's interest in its overall present and future."

This sounds a lot like what we have been writing here. Next time you stroll down Deerfield Beach or drive along A1A, compare what you see with what has happened in a city (albeit a smaller one) which has a different stance on the subject of redevelopment.

As stated on its web site, Surfside has been consistent in implementing its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. Town officials have denied all requests and proposals for exceeding the limitations of the municipal zoning code. In the past decade Surfside officials have not granted a single variance for height or density of buildings. On the other hand, the town has approved many new projects within the code and in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding area. In fact, the renovation and redevelopment that has occurred has actually resulted in overall density decreases, according to town officials!

Redevelopment not only alters the physical appearance of an area, but also may impact the political landscape as well. Deerfield Beach residents are well aware of this; and the corruption of city administration seems to extend to other issues also. Surfside officials, on the other hand, have tried to insure that the public has adequate opportunity to be heard in all decisions regarding the city's future development. They have conducted numerous public hearings and workshops on issues of comprehensive planning, zoning, and municipal codes.

Mayor Paul D. Novack and the town commission have set March 16th, 2004, as the date of a referendum election. Voters will be asked to approve a charter amendment that development density and building height cannot be increased without voter approval. Surfside officials state that any consideration, at any time in the future, that may allow for an increase in the density or height of buildings would be a fundamental and substantial change in managing growth for the future of the town. Surfside’s leadership also recognizes, advocates and supports the value of public participation in such crucial activities.

They say that public participation in decisions relating to these issues will lead to more informed, more representative, more transparent, and overall better decisions. The future of Surfside, like other communities in Florida, depends upon its land use and planning decisions. For these reasons, the commission has proposed the charter amendment that will give citizens the choice of whether they wish to reserve to themselves the final authority to make any fundamental decisions regarding the future of the town’s zoning limitations. Self-evident is the fact that the charter amendment would tend to protect the town's policies against arbitrary changes by future commissions.

[Note: the referendum was passed by a vote of 1055 for and 98 against.]

Surfside stands out as a place where public officials are committed to the needs of the community over the greed of developers. Voters in a number of towns have forced their city governments to adopt regulations limiting the height of buildings that can be built near the coast. The most extreme measure we know of is Treasure Island, where voters have reserved to themselves the authority to approve a project over 10 stories and requires that any such project must receive the approval of at least 50% of the registered voters.

Carabella (2003)

Treasure Island (2002)

Deerfield Beach (2002)

Cocoa Beach (1996, made more restrictive 2002)

Bay Harbor (2001)

Lauderdale-by-the-Sea (1998)

Miami Beach (1997)

Surfside (1991, restrictions placed in town charter 2004)

This list comes from articles by Fred Grimm in the Miami Herald, November 24th, 2002, and March 16th, 2004 and information from the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections.

[ SURFSIDE WEB SITE ]