After the Covid-19 pandemic, Florida gained an unexpected influx of residents. Though the population boom has cooled, with a population of 24,306,900 according to recent estimates, it’s no surprise that development bills are some of the most contentious of this legislative session. Given Florida’s abundant natural resources, it is more important than ever to balance growth with conservation and environmental resilience.
Here are the bills that have been introduced this year:
Blue Ribbon Projects
Florida’s growth and development is guided by local comprehensive plans, which control where housing, industry, conservation land, and infrastructure can be built. These plans are created by counties and cities and are meant to manage growth while protecting natural resources, agriculture, and community charm. Large-scale developments typically must follow these plans, or go through lengthy public processes to change them, including an opportunity for public input and opinion.
In the 2025 legislative session Sen. Stan McClain (R) introduced SB 1118, a bill that would have shifted land-use authority away from local governments while opening large amounts of agricultural land to development without local oversight. In support of this development bill, McClain explained that no matter how hard local communities try to fight against development, “it doesn’t change the fact that we have to find ways to make sure that housing is available for those people that are moving here.” SB 1118 ultimately died in Regulated Industries.
Florida continues to face pressure to build more housing, create jobs, and preserve environmentally sensitive land. CS/SB 354, introduced by Sen. Stan McClain (R), and its companion bill HB 299, put forward by Rep. Lauren Melo (R), respond to this pressure by creating “Blue Ribbon Projects,” a new development model that allows for large-scale planning and conservation while reducing local government control over land-use decisions.
If a developer controls at least 10,000 acres and agrees to permanently protect 60% of it for conservation, agriculture, wildlife corridors, recreation, or utilities, they would be allowed to develop the remaining land. These projects could move forward even if they conflict with existing local land-use plans or zoning rules. An opponent to the bills, Sean Parks, Lake County Commissioner, warns the bills would allow “the biggest, best-funded developers [to] ignore the rules communities create to manage growth,” fundamentally shifting decision-making power away from local communities.
Should these bills be passed, local governments would no longer vote on whether to approve these projects. Instead, approval would be administrative, meaning counties and cities could only verify whether the proposal meets state requirements, not whether it aligns with local priorities. Applications are automatically approved if the local government fails to provide comments within 60 days of receiving them, or within 30 days after amended documents are submitted following initial review.
Once approved, the developer would receive development rights that last up to 50 years or longer, allowing the project to be built in phases over decades. Environmental groups have expressed concern about the loss of local oversight. Friends of the Everglades state the bill is “limiting local governments’ ability to enforce its own rules, and cutting the public out of the approval process.”
Per the bill’s text, blue ribbon developments aim to create more compact, walkable, mixed-use communities rather than sprawling suburban development. They are intended to support long-term housing production, including affordable and “missing middle” housing, defined as housing denser than single-family homes but less dense than large apartment complexes. The new developments should also attract economic development and high-wage jobs through large, coordinated planning efforts, although what is classified as a high-wage job is undefined.
McClain and other supporters say the bill is meant to work around governments who believe in a “not in my backyard” mentality, which they blamed for driving up the cost of housing.
Concerns about recreational development in conservation areas gained significant attention last year during widespread bipartisan backlash against Florida’s proposed “Great Outdoors Initiative,” which included plans for facilities such as pickleball courts, golf courses, and lodges in several state parks. The initiative prompted criticism from environmental groups, lawmakers, and the public over whether these uses align with the purpose of protected lands.
Craig Pittman, writing for the Florida Phoenix, warns that the bill could undermine public participation, stating, “the more resistance the public puts up, the more the developers try to snatch away their ability to object.” These concerns are echoed by advocacy organizations such as the The Florida Native Plant Society, which has labeled SB 354 and HB 299 as “bad sprawl bills” and urged Floridians to contact legislators.
Conservation Easements
Florida uses conservation easements to permanently protect environmentally sensitive land, such as wetlands, from development. Conservation easements are voluntary legal agreements, meaning the owners vow to permanently limit the use of their land for conservation purposes. These easements restrict what property owners can do with their land, even if surrounding areas become heavily developed or covered by impervious surfaces.
Over time, some of these protected parcels have become small, isolated pieces of land surrounded by roads, parking lots, or buildings, raising questions about whether they still serve a meaningful conservation purpose. SB 938, introduced by Sen. Stan McClain (R), and the identical HB 673, brought forward by Rep. Wyman Duggan (R), seek to address this issue by creating a process to remove conservation easements under specific conditions.
Currently, conservation easements are generally permanent and nearly impossible to remove. Even if an area of land is small and surrounded by development, it must remain undeveloped. Property taxes on easement land are often much lower because further development is restricted.
SB 938 and HB 673 focus on conservation easements held by Florida’s water management districts and require the districts to release their conservation easements if requested by a property owner for parcels of land that meet these requirements:
- The land is smaller than 15 acres and surrounded on at least three sides by development
- The land has no historical, cultural, or archeological importance
- The applicant has significant mitigation credits
- The applicant has compensated the water management district from a mitigation bank to offset the loss of any wetlands
Mitigation banks are large-scale restored or preserved ecological areas like wetlands that can generate mitigation credits to offset environmental loss or damage during development. Developers purchase credits to protect sensitive land within these large mitigation banks, a process required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and commonly used by developers in Florida.
After easements are lifted, taxes on these lands would increase, and stormwater requirements would become the responsibility of the property owner instead of the water management district. Critics of this bill, such as the 1000 Friends of Florida Policy Team, claim that it “sets a precedent that may lead to more conservation properties being released.” If passed, the legislation could redefine the meaning of a “permanent” conservation easement, reshaping how future land protection agreements are viewed across the state.
Land Use and Development Regulations
Florida has experienced rapid population growth and rising housing costs, which lawmakers often link to limited housing supply and lengthy development approval processes. Traditionally, cities and counties control zoning decisions and development approvals through comprehensive plans and public hearings that allow community input. However, recent legislation has shifted authority toward the state over local rules that are seen as slowing housing construction. SB 208, introduced by Sen. Stan McClain (R), and HB 399, introduced by Rep. David Borrero (R), prioritize housing production and statewide consistency over local input.
SB 208 focuses on changing how residential development projects are approved in Florida by limiting when local governments can delay or deny housing proposals. The bill would require qualifying residential and infill development projects to be approved administratively, meaning without public hearings, if they meet specific standards set by the state. The required standards refer to the pre-existing rules, meaning the project must comply with zoning, land development regulations, comprehensive plan designations, building codes, and infrastructure requirements. It also restricts local governments from rejecting projects simply because they are considered incompatible with nearby development patterns.
Supporters argue that SB 208 strengthens property rights and helps address Florida’s housing affordability challenges by reducing restrictive zoning practices and delays. Policy analysts at the Reason Foundation state that “outdated zoning codes prohibit the construction of multifamily housing or mixed-use development on land already suitable for such purposes.” They believe the bill streamlines permitting, encourages private investment, and allows property owners and developers to respond more quickly to housing demand, which could help workers live closer to job centers and improve economic productivity.
Critics, including Friends of the Everglades, argue that SB 208 is just another bill that “would let development run wild,” expressing concern that restricting local governments’ ability to deny projects could lead to faster growth that may threaten environmentally sensitive areas.