People are angry and resentful about uncontrolled growth, and Amendment 4 will supposedly fix that. Amendment 4 argues that our elected officials and developers cause these feelings, so if we vote “yes,” they will no longer be in control; we will. Amendment 4, then, is not about land use decisions. It’s about control.
Under our form of government, people exercise control by voting for the candidates we prefer. The candidates who get the most votes run the government. We are powerful because we control who gets into office. The candidates have to pay attention to the majority so they can be elected. The majority, then, is in control. That’s how a democracy is supposed to work.
If the original proponents of Hometown Democracy were the majority, they could vote in candidates who agree with their point of view. But, they can’t. So they are a minority, but want control anyway. Their attempt to achieve that is Amendment 4. Amendment 4 proposes to change government by moving control from public officials to voters who really already have it in the first place.
The campaign for the amendment appeals to our emotions, and trusts that we won’t realize the consequences. In reality, if this amendment passes, our government will be de-stabilized, and land use decisions will become a media circus. When a proposal is put up for public vote, it will be just as hard to do good things as bad things because of the uncertainty of the outcome. How do you get control if you’re in the minority? By taking it away from the majority.
The best way to protect our power and rights is to vote “no” on Amendment 4, and then use our vote to elect people who do their job well.
Pete Spyke
Fort Pierce
