One centerpiece of Florida’s landmark 1985 growth management legislation was the concept of concurrency, a requirement that new development not proceed unless specific services are in place to service the development. Whereas many analysts have critiqued Florida’s concurrency mandate, these studies have usually focused on concurrency as a concept and not concurrency as actually implemented and practiced by local governments. For this article, we investigated the concurrency practices of 66 local governments in Florida, finding substantial variation in concurrency practices. Beyond this review of local government concurrency practices, the author also draws on the policy implementation literature to learn from Florida’s concurrency experiment.
Anderson, L. T.2000. Planning the built environment. Chicago: Planners Press.
2.
Audirac, I., W. O’Dell, and A. Shermyen. 1992. Concurrency management systems in Florida: A catalog and analysis. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Monograph No. 7. Gainesville, FL.
3.
Ben-Zadok, E.2005. Consistency, concurrency, and compact development: Three faces of growth management implementation in Florida. Urban Studies42 (12): 2167-2190.
4.
Ben-Zadok, E., and D. Gale. 2001. Innovation and reform, intentional inaction, and tactical breakdown: The implementation record of the Florida concurrency policy. Urban Affairs Review36 (6): 836-871.
5.
Chapin, T. Forthcoming. Growth management or growth unabated? Economic development in Florida in the 1990s. In Evaluating Florida’s growth management experiment, edited by. T. Chapin, C. Connerly, and H. Higgins. London: Ashgate.
6.
Chapin, T., and C. Connerly. 2004. Attitudes towards growth management in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association70 (4): 443-452.
7.
Connerly, C., and J. Frank. 1986. Predicting support for local growth controls. Social Sciences Quarterly67 (3): 572-586.
8.
DeGrove, J.1992. Planning and growth management in the states. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
9.
Downs, A.2003. Why Florida’s principles (for controlling new development by regulating road construction) do not and cannot work effectively. Transportation Quarterly57 (1): 13-18.
10.
2004. Chapter 9J-5: Minimum criteria for review of local government comprehensive plans.
11.
Florida Department of Transportation. 2002. Quality/level of service handbook. Tallahassee: State of Florida.
12.
Florida Statutes (chapter 163.3161-3242). 1985. Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Tallahassee: State of Florida.
13.
Guttenplan, M., B. Davis, R. Steiner, and D. Miller. 2003. Planning level areawide multi-modal level of service (LOS) analysis: Performance measures for congestion management. Transportation Research Record1858: 61-68.
14.
Matland, R.1995. Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory5 (2): 145-174.
15.
McLaughlin, W.1987. Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis9 (2): 171-178.
16.
Municipal Code Corporation. n.d. http://www.municode.com (accessed on January 31, 2005).
17.
Nicholas, J., and R. Steiner. 2000. Growth management and smart growth in Florida. Wake Forest Law Review35: 645-670.
18.
O’Toole, L.2000. Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory10 (2): 263-288.
19.
Pelham, T.1992. Adequate public facilities requirements: Reflections on Florida’s concurrency system for managing growth. Florida State University Law Review19: 973-1052.
20.
Pelham, T.. 2001. Restructuring Florida’s growth management system: Alternative approaches to plan implementation and concurrency. Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy12: 299-310.
21.
Pressman, J., and A. Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
22.
Rosenbloom, S.1988. Transportation planning. In The practice of local government planning, edited by F. So and J. Getzels, pp. 139-174. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
23.
Sabatier, P., and D. Mazmanian. 1980. The implementation of public policy: A framework for analysis. Policy Studies Journal8: 538-560.
24.
Saetren, H.2005. Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation: Out-of-fashion, allegedly dead, but still very much alive and relevant. The Policy Studies Journal33 (4): 559-582.
25.
Steiner, R.2001. Florida’s transportation concurrency: Are the current tools adequate to meet the need for coordinated land use and transportation planning? Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy12 (2): 269-297.
26.
Steiner, R.. Forthcoming. Transportation concurrency: An idea before its time? In Evaluating Florida’s growth management experiment, edited by T. Chapin, C. Connerly, and H. Higgins. London: Ashgate.
27.
Steiner, R., and J. Waterman. 1999. The impact of concurrency management and the Florida Growth Management Act on transportation investments. Prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, Department of Policy Planning under Contract No. BB- 866, December.
28.
Stuart, G.1994. Concurrency-management practices in Florida: Comparative assessment. Journal of Urban Planning and Development120 (2): 59-73.
29.
Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway capacity manual. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
30.
White, S. M.1996. Adequate public facilities ordinances and transportation management. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 465. Chicago: American Planning Association.
