Drew Dixon
The Senate Tuesday postponed a bill that would limit development in Florida state parks.
The “The State Park Preservation Act” gained increasing support and momentum this Legislative Session as a rebuke of attempted additions last year, such as golf courses, hotels and pickleball courts on state park land. Those proposals prompted widespread protests by residents last Summer. The plans by the Gov. Ron DeSantis administration were eventually dropped.
The bills this Session (SB 80, HB 209) had already gained momentum by legislators in several committees. Representatives gave unanimous approval on the House floor this month, and the measure was supposed to be considered by Senators. But the bill was postponed in the early going of the Senate session Tuesday. Lawmakers did not take up the measure by the time the session wrapped late in the day.
It’s possible the Senate still finds time to revisit the bill. But the measure being stalled this late raises questions about its future with only a few days remaining in the Legislative Session.
The State Preservation Act states it would require “public hearings for all updated conservation and nonconservation land management plans; requiring the Division of Recreation and Parks of the Department of Environmental Protection to comply with specified provisions when granting certain privileges, leases, concessions, and permits.”
The Senate bill is identical to a House measure by Rep. John Snyder, a Stuart Republican, that was approved on the floor of that chamber earlier this month.
The bill was so popular, there was an outcry when Republican Sen. Joe Gruters suggested an amendment.
Gruters, a Sarasota Republican, proposed during a Fiscal Policy Committee meeting April 22 to add public hearings that could be opened up to review suggested additions to state parks. Gruters said such measures would still need to clear a “high hurdle” before any new development to state parks could be approved.
His fellow committee members rejected the proposed amendment after testimony from the public became intense.
Travis Moore of the Friends of the Everglades said the amendment was not what those who were opposed to state park development would even entertain.
“I don’t think the public (last) Summer was interested in setting a high hurdle,” Moore said. “I think there’s clarity from the outpouring that we saw (last) Summer that golf courses not be allowed.”
4 comments
tom palmer
April 29, 2025 at 6:59 pm
Good Lord. What is the real issue, I wonder.
Time to change our constitution and go unicameral like Nebraska!
April 29, 2025 at 10:26 pm
The Florida Senate is where good Legislation goes to die.
Andy
April 30, 2025 at 12:01 am
The lobbyists once again beat ‘of the people, for the people, by the people’. Time to throw all these legislative whores out of office!
LexT
April 30, 2025 at 9:53 am
I am surprised some version of this did not pass. If the hurdle is high enough, then I might be for a hurdle because the whole point of preserving land is to allow people to enjoy the preserved land by visiting it. It makes sense to me that development in and around of our state parks to create hotels and visitor centers do make sense if no such amenities are available. In St. Augustine with the Anastasia State Park, the property already has one of the largest hotels in the County adjacent to it and several others within walking distance. The park itself is not big enough to remove protected space for people to enjoy it. This stinks that some major developer wants to develop in one or more of these parks. I actually would entertain allowing just that if there was a trade to offset the development with say, putting a hundred times the acreage being developed into new conservation. That would potentially create a potential win/win, but without some costly trade offs, we are conserving these natural habitats to try to keep them pristine and to allow people to visit pristine environments. I think that’s what this bill is supposed to help protect.
Comments are closed.