Dear 1000 Friends,

Last Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee unanimously passed SB 80, the “State Park Preservation Act,” which is the Legislature’s response to last summer’s ill-advised plan to convert areas of our state parks into golf courses, pickleball courts and hotels and was withdrawn amid public protest. (Read the Tampa Bay Times coverage here)

1000 Friends of Florida, along with dozens of other organizations and businesses, sent a letter to the bill sponsors thanking them for their leadership, while highlighting that we believe there is still more work to be done. On the plus side, the legislation improves public notice requirements for any changes that would be made to land management plans which govern state parks and clearly states that the specific uses listed above are not consistent with intended “conservation-based public outdoor recreational uses.”

However, we are concerned that the bill only covers the immediate threats to our parks. With two more Senate committees, a full Senate vote, and House action still ahead, there’s time to strengthen the bill. We’re urging legislators to support even stronger protections for all of Florida’s public lands. You can help by requesting the same, especially if a park near you was one of the nine that would have been impacted by the ill-conceived development plans this summer. Let your representatives know that the legislation should:

• Strengthen conservation intent: Clearly define that the purpose of state parks is to conserve natural lands and promote nature-based recreation, not activities that require altering the landscape.
• Remove language encouraging development in ‘disturbed’ areas: Many of these areas provide valuable wildlife habitat and ecosystem benefits when restored. 
• Clarify rules for unsolicited development proposals: The bill should specify what types of privately proposed development projects will be considered for state parks and prevent harmful, incompatible development from being fast-tracked through public-private partnership loopholes.
• Eliminate vague terms that weaken protections: Phrases like “to the maximum extent practicable,” “significant harm,” and “avoid” could be construed to allow the activities the legislation is intended to prevent.
• Add explicit prohibitions and definitions: Clearly list prohibited activities to eliminate ambiguity in how the law is interpreted.
• Extend protections to state forests and wildlife management areas

Thank you,

Kim Dinkins

Policy & Planning Director