Florida is having a debate about controlling growth at a time when there's precious little growth to control. If supporters of Amendment 4 prevail at the polls in November, the growth issue could be rendered moot for years to come.
The sponsors of the Amendment 4 ballot initiative launched their campaign to apply a voter check on growth in the midst of the real estate boom. Understandably, a lot of folks were unhappy with what they saw as unruly growth that made a mockery of local governments' comprehensive land-use plans.
Activists who favor controlled growth, or "smart growth," chose a name for their group that evokes warm feelings of hearth and home -- "hometown" -- and combined it with the red, white and blue of "democracy." Armed with the Florida Hometown Democracy label, they were able to capitalize on public anger over rapid and, in some cases, ill-considered growth.
But there's a big problem with the hometown democracy group's crusade for smarter growth: The proposed solution they came up with could make Floridians long for the bad old days of frenetic development.
The constitutional amendment Florida Hometown Democracy succeeded in getting on the November ballot would turn the community planning process into a popularity contest. If 60 percent of the state's voters say "yes" to Amendment 4, proposed changes to local comprehensive land-use plans would have to be approved by voters.
There's a lot of debate over the impact of this requirement, but there's no question that voters would be regularly called on to make decisions that currently are made by elected officials who draw on the expertise of professional planners and administrators.
Consider that in Volusia County in 2007 -- a year in which growth was still a significant issue -- there were 17 proposed changes in the comprehensive plan.
A typical voter wouldn't have the time or the inclination to explore all the ins and outs of land-use issues. Yet, under Amendment 4, voters would be asked to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on complex proposals that could have a major impact on an area's environment, economy and quality of life.
Supporters of Amendment 4 argue that the officials we elect to represent us are incapable of making wise decisions about land use because they're intimidated by the power and money of developers.
If that's true, the solution is to elect better representatives. Government by referendum definitely isn't the answer: It's likely to create a political state of nature in which various interest groups -- including those well-heeled developers -- wage constant war at the ballot box and in the courts. This is not the way to plan for a community's future.
Consider the situation in St. Pete Beach, a Gulf Coast town located near St. Petersburg. In 2006 St. Pete Beach adopted a direct democracy approach to land-use decisions. Since then the town has been tied in knots by electoral and legal battles between developers and anti-growth activists.
Hometown Democracy supporters say the language of Amendment 4 is less sweeping than the St. Pete Beach law, and that the constitutional change wouldn't sow chaos in communities across the state. Maybe not. But the two measures operate under the same theory -- that voters should directly control land-use decisions.
Before we throw out representative government, let's find ways to improve the current system of growth management. And with growth stalled and unemployment lingering at double-digit levels, let's figure out how to correct past excesses without sending a signal to potential new employers that Florida is a risky bet for job-creating investment.
First, say "no" to Amendment 4. Then start putting pressure on elected officials to prepare for the time when growth again poses a major challenge for our communities.
