Florida must protect state parks. New bill is a step in the right direction.

In a perfect world, state Sen. Gayle Harrell's Senate Bill 80, the so-called "State Park Preservation Act," should be unnecessary.

After the public outcry last year over plans to put hotels, golf courses, pickleball courts and other development in nine targeted state parks, it would seem logical the developers and bureaucrats behind the push would have gotten the message.

Those involved in the ill-fated plans, quickly withdrawn amid a growing furor, should understand Floridians don't want to see their state parks spoiled with excessive clearing, paving and building.

This isn't a perfect world, though; it's Florida. And if our state's developers have learned anything through the years, it's that they don't have to win every time they make an unreasonable proposal. They only have to win once. And poof! Another precious piece of what enticed many people to move to the Sunshine State in the first place gets bulldozed in the name of progress.

Harrell, a veteran Republican legislator from Stuart, understands that all too well. That's why she's introduced a bill that would restrict most types of development in state parks and increase transparency related to future park proposals.

Her bill and its companion, House Bill 209, sponsored by state Rep. John Snyder, R-Stuart, are critical safeguards to prevent developers from trying to sneak unpopular park alterations past the public in the future.

The bill intends for state parks to be used for "conservation-based public outdoor recreational uses" such as hiking, camping, kayaking, bird watching and other activities that can be done on land in its natural state.

Recreational activities like golf, tennis, pickleball and other sports that require built infrastructure would generally not be permitted.

Land management plans would have to be developed and regularly updated for the parks. Changes couldn't be made without adequate public notice.

At its first stop in the legislative process, the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee unanimously recommended the bill, which, if approved, would take effect July 1.

That initial reception wasn't surprising. This issue should have bipartisan support. If there's anything people living in this diverse state can agree upon, it's the importance of protecting our natural treasures, for our own enjoyment and the sake of our tourist-driven economy.

Dozens of civic groups have reviewed the bill and offered suggestions for improving it. Some are worth considering, others may present pitfalls.

For example, it seems sensible to broaden the scope of the bill to include not only state parks, but also state forests and wildlife protection areas.

It might also be wise to clarify, for the public's benefit, the process by which developers are allowed to submit unsolicited proposals for using state property. The existing law seems to allow developers to propose almost anything on any piece of state-owned property, without exclusions.

Harrell's bill would allow development of cabins, suitable for use by up to six occupants, but not hotels in state parks. However, there should be some limits to prevent developers from proposing dozens of cabins in lieu of hotels.

Some have suggested the bill should specify uses that wouldn't be permitted, but this is a slippery slope. As thorough as legislators try to be, they might not think of every possible use developers could propose.

If the bill doesn't specifically include an undesirable use in that list, that might create a legal loophole that could be exploited. (For example, a few decades ago, could anyone have foreseen the popularity of pickleball?)

There will undoubtedly be some minor tinkering as the bill continues its path through legislative committees. Let's hope, though, this bill doesn't get "loved to death," either intentionally or unintentionally, by changes that weaken its effectiveness.

Consider these numbers from a 2022 state Department of Environmental Protection memo:

In the 2022 fiscal year, more than 32 million Florida residents and visitors visited state parks and trails, producing a direct economic impact of $3.9 billion and more than $267 million in sales tax revenue.

State park operations supported more than 55,000 jobs. According to the DEP's research, for every 1,000 people visiting a state park, there's an economic benefit to the local community of $123,619.

There's too much at stake here to leave state parks vulnerable to the whims of developers who might prioritize short-term profits over the long-term best interests of the state's residents and visitors.

This bill deserves the support of Floridians across the political, social and economic spectrums.

NOTE: As this bill moves through the legislative process, our Opinion journalists want to hear from you and publish your voice on the issue of protecting and preserving our state parks. Please email this USA Today Network - Florida site to share your opinion.