[BlueWillowPlate]

Has the Nature Conservancy bought much land in Florida?

[ellie]

Originally Posted by Prichard

That doesn't sound very American to me! What you are saying is that you believe a person should be able to own a 1/4 acre lot out in the country, but stop his neighbors from subdividing their lots into 1/4 acre lots. So, the guy who spends $20,000 on a 1/4 acre lot in the middle of no where gets to "preserve" the natural landscape that he likes to look at, while someone else is paying the taxes on it.

I don't think that is what I was saying.

I was saying that I didn't know if people will willingly buy into smaller lot sizes in urban areas because they can always move to counties that are less restrictive - unless the price is right and the quality is high enough. Or they are able to live close enough to work and schools.

But people don't seem to be concerned with quality.

Honestly, I'm putting this out here because the Florida forum is really good at debating tricky issues.

What's the best way to preserve what's left of the "Florida quality of life"?

[jdf718]

Many developers charge a green fee or developers fee at closing because of the green spaces included in the development. Since they can't monetize it, they pass on this cost to buyers. Sometimes comes as shock to buyers but it at least incentivizes developers to preserve or create green space.

[Prichard]

Many developers charge a green fee or developers fee at closing...

That's a 100% pure junk fee! I can understand the Builder passing along the impact fees to buyers - that's an easy one-for-one pass through cost.

But, charging a "green fee" is a sharp-tricky Builder technique to make a product look cheap, and then spring on so-called "pass-through" costs on unsuspecting buyers. You just have to understand the process of taking raw land through entitlements, through development, and then through the building process to really understand this. When a developer gets a piece of raw land entitled for a particular type of development - i.e. get all governmental approvals, they know exactly how much green space the county/city is going to make them have for buffers, etc. The developer knows this before he pays for the property. So, he factors that into the price he's going to pay. Price is based on how many units (houses, condos, townhomes, etc.) he can squeeze out of the property. It makes no difference on how much greenspace is left - all that matters is number of units - "density".

So, the developer bases his price that he will pay for the land from the seller on number of units. The Builder buys lots from the developer and it is the builder that is charging the "green fee", not the developer. The Builder buys parcels ("blanks" or "lots") from the developer based on a percentage of the total price he expects to get when he sells it to the end user. Usually one Builder builds out the entire subdivision. The Developer doesn't charge the builder for any non-developable land, it just comes with it. But, the Builder is charging the end user for this non-developable land, as though he had to pay for it and is passing through a cost.! JUNK FEE!!!

[sunrico90]

Originally Posted by ellie

What I'm questioning is why smart people buy in such barren and and unFlorida-like places when moving to Florida. You'd think in a capitalist society, we'd be demanding better for our hard-earned dollars.

We have very rich people relocating to Florida and owning a part of Florida is a status token for many. With the increased in tourism, new attractions, even the Super-Bowl, individuals will continue to invest their money here.

Is the hard-earned money well invested, is up to the owner. Many will take a gamble and continue purchase just to resale later. The vicious circle continues, I don't see a stop in the near future....

[tallrick]

Originally Posted by Prichard

I agree with Tallrick. If it weren't for high taxes, people could afford to save their money and buy large parcels of beautiful natural land to preserve and enjoy. The State should encourage people to sell off the development rights to natural land, or even Agricultural land to non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving rural America. To do this, the State needs to give a corresponding tax adjustment to the landowner. So, if I own 100 acres of land, and I agree that the land can never be used for anything but a 100 acre farm/preserve, the value should be very low, since there is no chance of me making millions of dollars by someday selling out to a developer. This would protect large tracts of land from the presures to subdivide.

Also if someone buys land as rural or agricultural or forest land and develops it into homes , condos or ETC they should pay a one-time development tax assessment to aid in paying for improvements related to the change of use. Base it on the value of the land after development. Take the profit away and you will cut out a lot of the incentive for development! This would also encourage people to move to cities which is a more efficient use of resources. I am against natural parks/preserves because people are excluded from them in many ways and no one cares as much as the right person or family living right by the natural area, looking out for it's interest. I have defended my little home and yard for years and the only enemy is the tax assessor. People who enjoy the land will care for it better than any government entity.