|
|
|
Amendment 4: Should the public vote on changes to growth plans?
Proposal would require voter approval to growth-plan changes This proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution would require voter approval of proposals that change local growth-management plans. Comprehensive plans, as they are known, are blueprints that cities and counties use to lay out a vision of what their communities will look like. The plans outline specifics for future development: where, what kind and how dense.
Voters already have indirect control over how comprehensive plans are changed, by electing the city and county officials who control them. But supporters of this amendment say elected officials too often ignore voters, and the rules for halting unplanned growth are not working. This proposed amendment, they say, is a way of giving residents the power to decide where and how their communities should grow. Voters would decide whether they want their comp plan changed – and, essentially, whether they back the new development being proposed – in referendums.
Local governments could hold special elections or add the questions to the ballot in a regular election. Statewide, cities and counties regularly make more than 8,000 changes a year to their comp plans, a number that both supporters and opponents of this amendment use to make their case. Supporters say the massive number of comp plan changes shows why voters need more control over the process. Opponents say the amendment, if passed, would force local governments to hold dozens of special elections or offer a giant ballot during regular elections that would overwhelm and confuse voters.
The debate can also be framed as a challenge to the republic form of government, which is based on the premise that voters select representatives to make decisions for the good of the entire community after hearing from their electorate. If adopted, this amendment would turn land use changes over to the will of the majority voting in a particular election.
The proposed amendment has become synonymous with the group that succeeded in getting it on the ballot, Florida Hometown Democracy. But, in fact, the amendment will appear on the ballot like this: "REFERENDA REQUIRED FOR ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS.” Here is the summary:
"Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice.” Arguments for
Florida Hometown Democracy Inc. started collecting petition
signatures for its amendment  in 2003. The group is led by Palm Beach land-use attorney Lesley Blackner and Tallahassee environmental attorney Ross Burnaman and is bolstered by some state environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and other organizations in favor of controls on growth. On its Web site, Florida Hometown Democracy declares its mission is to "make the current land use system more accountable by giving the power over certain land use changes (comprehensive plan amendments) to the voters.”
Too often, backers contend, development interests are able to navigate the Byzantine world of local comp plan amendments to usher through changes that benefit their interests with little or no input from citizens affected by it. Amendment backers argue that comprehensive plans already approved can accommodate growth for decades to come. Making it relatively easy to change local plans defeats the purpose, they say.
"As Florida’s recent history demonstrates, changes to your community’s master plan are among the most important decisions that local governments make, and we in the community must live with the consequences for decades to come,” the Hometown Democracy group states.
"Accordingly, voters have a right to be involved in this most important decision-making process.” Since 2003, the group has raised and spent nearly $1.5 million. Most of the contributions were less than $1,000 each; the Sierra Club of Florida has given more than $200,000. Blackner, the campaign’s largest single contributor, has put up nearly $1 million.
You can see Hometown Democracy’s campaign finance activity since June 2003 on the Florida Department of State’s Web site.
Against
Builders, real estate agents and other business
groups responded to the  Hometown Democracy proposal by starting their own group, Floridians for Smarter Growth. The group, backed by the Florida Chamber of Commerce asserts that this amendment "subverts a well-established, open, accessible and democratic planning process.” Since its creation in 2007, the group has raised $4 million to defeat the Hometown Democracy proposal. Floridians for Smarter Growth contends that the proposal would hamstring government, kill business development and further depress Florida’s economy. By requiring voters to approve thousands of comp plan changes, most of which they argue are non-controversial, the amendment would make it much more difficult for local governments to keep up with even the day-to-day changes necessitated by growth. The group labeled the amendment the "Vote on Everything” initiative.
The Smarter Growth group generated its own amendment for the 2010 ballot. It would have superseded the Hometown Democracy proposal and required that at least 10 percent of a community’s registered voters show up at a local government office and sign a petition if they favor a vote on a comp plan change. The group, however, failed to meet a Feb. 1 deadline to garner enough signatures to put the competing measure on the ballot.
Opponents have re-focused their energies to defeat Amendment 4. Toward that end, they formed Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, which took over for Floridians for Smarter Growth as the lead group opposing the proposed constitutional changes. During the first quarter of 2010, the group raised nearly $1 million. "Amendment 4 would make the recession we are in permanent,” said Florida Chamber President Mark Wilson, "It will make managing growth unmanageable. It is really a no-growth amendment.”
Business groups are not alone in opposition. The Florida League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties also oppose Amendment 4, arguing that it will make their jobs much more difficult. Gov. Charlie Crist and Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, the state’s highest-ranking elected Democrat, have also come out against the amendment.
In addition, the nonprofit 1000 Friends of Florida growth-management advocacy organization is against Amendment 4. "Major concerns with the amendment include that very local concerns may overwhelm larger societal ones, dilution of accountability for development decisions by elected officials, piecemeal planning, high-priced media campaigns involving amendments, the possibility of 'planning gridlock,' and retaliation by the Legislature," the group says in a statement on its website . "The current state of affairs in Florida growth management cannot be allowed to endure, but 1000 Friends is equally aware of the problems with having public votes on every comprehensive plan amendment."
The campaign finance history for Citizens for Lower Taxes and a stronger economy can be found here.
Political History
The Florida Supreme Court approved the amendment in 2006, ruling that it deals with a single subject and that its ballot language is accurate. On June 17, 2009, the court handed Hometown Democracy a major victory when it struck down a 2007 law that allowed voters to revoke their signatures from petition drives, a law that was championed by Hometown Democracy’s opponents. After the law passed in 2007, opponents used it to send letters to those who signed the Hometown Democracy petition, and 13,000 of them agreed to revoke their signatures.
On June 22, 2009, Secretary of State Kurt Browning certified Amendment 4 after backers obtained more than the required 676,811 signatures, clearing the way for the measure to appear on the ballot. Observers say other recent developments are working in Hometown Democracy’s favor, including a bill (SB 360) signed by Gov. Charlie Crist on June 1, 2009, that will ease the burden developers have had in helping to pay for local roads to accommodate their projects. The new law is so extreme, its opponents say, that it will drive even moderates to back Hometown Democracy’s amendment.
Another issue that could potentially affect the debate is a decision by lawmakers this year to leave the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in limbo by failing to reauthorize its existence as required by a 2006 law. In 2006, state lawmakers passed the Florida Government Accountability Act, which requires the legislature to review and reauthorize state agencies every 10 years. The DCA, the state's growth-management agency, was among a handful of agencies to come under review in 2010. Lawmakers, many of whom have been critical of the agency’s control over local planning decisions, chose not to reauthorize the agency.
While the DCA can function as usual without the vote of confidence, it could be viewed as a shot across the bow by lawmakers. Under the law, the agency would be abolished on July 1, 2011, if lawmakers choose not to reauthorize by then and instead transfer the agency’s responsibilities to other departments. Hometown Democracy supporters see the legislature’s lack of support for DCA as another reason the public needs to control growth decisions and are expected to make it an issue during the upcoming campaign to approve Amendment 4. DCA Secretary Tom Pelham told Jacksonville.com that a vote to renew the DCA would have sent a signal that the state will continue to manage development without Amendment 4. "I think the failure of the House to re-enact sends the opposite message," he is quoted as saying. What they're saying "The only reason to not support the Hometown Democracy Amendment is if you like seeing unchecked urban sprawl; if you like to sit in traffic on a road that wasn’t built for the proper capacity in time; if you enjoy seeing wi ldlife suffer because there isn’t any place else for them to go." — The Sierra Club "The Vote on Everything amendment would cause Florida’s economy to permanently collapse. If you like the recession, you’ll love Amendment 4. According to a study conducted by The Washington Economics Group, Amendment 4 will reduce Florida’s economic output by $34 billion annually. Given Florida’s precarious economic climate, that’s the last thing our state needs.” — Florida2010.org "There is enough approved development to create jobs and revenue and to accommodate population growth of more than 80 million people in the state, with more being proposed as you read this. At what point does the growth game end in a state surrounded by saltwater, an ocean infiltrating its perimeter?” — Dori Sutter, Amendment 4 coordinator "I admit to being in an impossible personal position of not knowing at this time how I am going to vote on this issue. I think I am going to wait and watch the next session of the Florida Legislature to see if there is any hope that maturation of the leadership understands the critical nature of the decisions that must be made if we are to reverse or continue the era of the great Ponzi scheme.” — Nat Reed, vice chairman of the Everglades Foundation Comment. You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
Comments Received: (View all comments) There are no comments |
AMENDMENT 4 Title on Ballot: Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans Official Summary: Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. What it would do: Amendment 4 would give local voters a veto over any changes in comprehensive plans. Arguments for: Local governments have proven themselves incapable of placing the public interest before the interests of real estate developers. The people should have the final say. Arguments against: The amendment would require votes on every change, no matter how minor. Ballots would be long and involved. Voters would be overwhelmed. Growth would grind to a halt, and the state's economy would remain mired in recession.
News SunSentinel.com: Lion Country Safari development push creates roar for Amendment 4 Tampa Bay Newspapers: Former mayor opposes Amendment 4 Sun-Sentinel: League of Cities comes out against land-use amendment Jacksonville Observer: Chiles Opposed to Amendment 4 Naples Daily News: City trims back its land-use plan in preparation for Hometown Democracy Opinion St. Petersburg Times: Growth bill becomes election issue
South Florida Business Journal: Vote No on 4 PAC's scare tactics The Bradenton Times: The truth behind the lies Hernando Today: Amendment would empower people on land use issues TC Palm: Here are 3,473 reasons to vote against Amendment 4
The Tampa Tribune: "An awful lot of development"
Or read the comments of others? Click here.
| ||||||||
