SB102: A One-Size-Fits-All Solution to Florida’s Diverse Housing Needs

Article was originally published in the Coconut Grove Spotlight
September 3rd, 2024 

When my son gets hurt, I console him with the phrase “sana, sana, colita de rana,” which loosely translates to “heal, heal, little frog’s tail.” It makes no real sense, but it always makes him feel better. However, when he’s genuinely injured, we seek professional help.

Similarly, the “Live Local Act” (SB102) bill, enacted with minimal input from city planners and architects, seeks to address Florida’s housing crisis with good intentions but without professional precision and foresight. This law will reshape our cities by streamlining development and promoting higher-density housing in commercial and industrial areas without the expert insight to understand its impact on our communities and the essential services required for healthy urban strategic growth. It’s akin to saying, “Sana, sana, SB102 de rana,” hoping the housing crisis will be resolved without side effects.

When tackling affordability, it is vital to prioritize healthy strategic growth. The bill’s authors, though knowledgeable about zoning, would have benefited from a deeper understanding of how cities function, their unique qualities, histories, and diverse characters. However, with 411 municipalities and over 10,000 neighborhoods in Florida, who could cater to the specific needs of each one? No one can, and that’s why a blanket approach to affordability is ill-conceived.

Height and density aren’t suitable everywhere. SB102 neglects resilient measures by promoting large-scale development in vulnerable coastal and flood-prone areas. It neglects essential infrastructure like roads, emergency services, schools, and parks—elements covered in Comprehensive Plans to guide strategic growth and ensure livability. Placing housing indiscriminately in commercial and industrial zones risks overwhelming infrastructure, worsening congestion, and straining utilities. Without careful planning and provision of these services, new affordable developments will be built in the wrong places without proper services, amplifying the issues SB102 aims to resolve.

A critical flaw in SB102 is assuming that density requires height. Florida’s 1920s and 30s small-scale apartments show that small, high-density buildings exist compatibly within neighborhoods. With limited parking and minimal amenities, these buildings have low HOAs and construction costs and maintain affordable rents. For instance, Miami’s 1920s central corridor buildings, like 2401 Overbrook St in Coconut Grove, achieve 60-150 dwelling units per acre with just 2-3 stories, blending seamlessly into the urban fabric. Options like ADUs, triplexes, and courtyard apartments further enhance neighborhood diversity and housing availability. This doesn’t mean less housing, but more integrated rather than concentrated in towering structures. Instead of SB102’s ‘super-size-it’ approach, efficient, quality affordable housing works better when introduced strategically throughout a community.

By prioritizing maximum heights and large-scale developments, SB102 overlooks the diverse housing types that have historically made our neighborhoods vibrant and inclusive. These housing types offer various densities while maintaining a harmonious scale, ensuring that buildings complement rather than overshadow each other. The bill needs to provide solutions that address affordability while preserving neighborhood character. Large-scale developments often require extensive land assemblies, encouraging land banking, speculation, and displacement of existing residents and businesses, ultimately exacerbating the problems the law aims to solve—particularly in hyperinflated markets—undermining the character and scale of established neighborhoods.

While the legislation encourages development near transit by reducing parking requirements, it must prioritize it. This is an opportunity to encourage growth around transportation nodes and corridors, gradually decreasing height to match the existing neighborhoods’ character with smaller, scaled-down infill projects that blend seamlessly into the urban fabric. Such a strategy would preserve the character of lower-rise areas, contributing to balanced growth and maintaining community integrity while accommodating new residents to support public transit. This approach would reduce congestion and promote sustainable transit-supportive environments, motivating cities to enhance transportation options and reducing car dependency and the need for onerous parking mandates.

The law must seriously address the impact of parking on housing affordability. Mandating parking on any new development imposes significant financial burdens, driving up the cost of housing and making units less affordable. While parking may be desirable, especially in areas with limited public transit, existing stringent parking requirements increase development costs and exacerbate affordability issues. Parking should be optional, not mandatory. Numerous cities nationwide are eliminating parking minimums. Although not all cities may be ready for this, SB102 should require parking exemptions, at least in all TOD areas within half a mile, allowing the market to determine parking needs and compelling cities to invest in alternative mobility solutions. Parking should be considered an amenity, not a requirement, as the cost of structured parking—averaging $30,000 per space (or $60,000 if two spaces are required)—inevitably results in higher housing prices.

A more profound issue lies in how ‘affordable’ is calculated. The current method using Area Median Income (AMI) is too broad and often fails to reflect real household economics, particularly in gentrifying or economically diverse neighborhoods where wealthier newcomers skew the median income. As a result, the ‘affordable’ units created under this legislation are often still out of reach. For example, in Miami-Dade, ‘affordable’ rents at 120% AMI are set at $2,554 for a one-bedroom and $3,063 for a two-bedroom unit. To afford this under HUD guidelines—where housing costs should be no more than 30% of income—a family of three would need to earn $122,520 annually, far above the county’s median income of $79,400 and even more unrealistic in areas like the West Grove, at $50,000. Without a more precise approach considering local economic conditions, the housing produced under SB102 will remain inaccessible to those who truly need it, creating low-end market units rather than genuine affordable housing.

Localized income assessments would ensure more realistic AMIs to achieve true affordability. The current thresholds could exacerbate displacement, pushing existing residents out of their communities. A fairer, more calibrated AMI and access to essential services like schools, parks, and transportation are crucial for creating sustainable and equitable housing solutions. Without these adjustments, SB102 risks perpetuating the housing crisis and worsening inequality.

The law has sparked concerns among urban planners and local governments by overriding zoning laws and imposing a one-size-fits-all approach that disregards the unique needs of individual communities. This preemption limits local authorities’ ability to develop strategies that align with their strategic growth plans, neighborhoods’ character, and historical context, creating tension between state and local objectives.

Much like the issues that led to the 1776 Declaration of Independence, where the ‘consent of the governed’ was crucial, this top-down approach from Tallahassee highlights a significant disconnect. Lawmakers in the state capital are not and cannot be attuned to the nuances of life in every community, much less in South Florida. Given the distinct challenges and opportunities here, perhaps it’s time to consider whether South Florida requires more autonomy to ensure that development policies are crafted with a deep understanding of our region’s unique context and needs.