Last November, in an otherwise polarizing election, 73% of Orange County voters united behind creating a new “rural boundary” by placing higher hurdles to development on rural and agriculturally zoned land in the county. Perhaps only motherhood and apple pie would have earned more resounding endorsements.

Leaders behind the successful drive to amend Orange County’s charter were inspired by neighboring Seminole County’s rural boundary, created by its county leaders in 1991 and codified by voters in its charter in 2004. In November, 82% of Seminole County voters strengthened their rural boundary by approving a charter amendment to prevent removing any property from its protections without approval from a super majority of commissioners.

Several other counties in Florida — Marion and Palm Beach are two prominent examples —have also reserved large areas within their borders for agriculture or conservation rather than development. But bills pending in this year’s regular session of the Florida Legislature would overrule such local decisions. They would leave protected areas vulnerable to low-density residential sprawl, a fiscally insolvent development pattern that costs more in public services than it generates in taxes.

1000 Friends of Florida, a nonprofit, nonpartisan member-supported organization dedicated since 1986 to environmentally and fiscally sustainable development, strongly opposes these bills. If they become law, they would wipe out limits against development on huge swaths of high-priority natural and agricultural land across Florida, doing irreversible damage to our environment, quality of life and economy.

Senate Bill 1118 and its counterpart, House Bill 1209, read like a developer’s Christmas list. Among their gifts, they would allow development proposals for so-called “agricultural enclaves” — farmland bordered on three sides by development, or even by undeveloped land designated for future development — to be “administratively approved,” no matter what a county’s growth plan, future land-use map or zoning might dictate for the property.

Administrative approval overrides local decision-making and citizen input. There are no public meetings where proposals are presented to locally elected officials and their constituents, with the opportunity for debate and public comment.

Another provision in SB 1118/HB 1209 would turn on its head the super-majority requirement adopted by Orange, Seminole and other local governments. Instead of requiring such a margin for development approvals in environmentally sensitive areas, it would demand super-majority approval for any growth plan amendments deemed “more restrictive or burdensome” for development. This would further tilt the playing field in growth decisions in favor of developers, who almost always enjoy advantages over any opponents when it comes to resources to bankroll lawyers and lobbyists to win approval for their proposals.

Another provision in the bills would require administrative approval for infill development proposals on parcels if the proposed density is the same as neighboring properties. While infill development is normally far preferable to sprawl, some infill proposals that would qualify for administrative approval might be a poor fit in historic neighborhoods, or might consume limited urban green space. These are judgments local leaders are elected to make after hearing from their constituents, not decisions to be dictated in Tallahassee.

Agriculture 2070, a report published last year by 1000 Friends and the University of Florida’s Center for Landscape Conservation Planning, found that Florida would lose 3.5 million acres of undeveloped land, including 2.2 million acres of agricultural land, to accommodate its projected population growth by 2070 if it maintains sprawling development patterns. The loss of that much land would cost the state billions of dollars in ecosystem services — benefits to the environment like cleaner water, and to the economy by supporting agriculture and tourism.

But the report also found that if leaders rule out development in high-priority natural and agricultural areas, and direct it instead to more compact development in urban areas with the infrastructure to support it, more than a million threatened acres could be preserved.

Regrettably, though SB 1118 and HB 1209 might be the worst, there are other bills that would erode what reasonable controls and local oversight remain on development in Florida. State residents who have experienced the consequences of poorly planned growth — from chronic traffic congestion to polluted waterways to higher taxes — should be urging their representatives in Tallahassee to oppose these and other bad bills that would sacrifice Florida’s environment and quality of life to runaway development.

Paul Owens is president of 1000 Friends of Florida.