Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Inc.

Wrong Rx for growth woes
The gist: There's a better way than Hometown Democracy
October 4, 2009
Orlando Sentinel Editorial

We're as angry and exasperated as anyone when it comes to how readily officials throughout Florida trample local growth plans. The plans are supposed to reflect a community's vision of how — or even whether — it wishes to grow. But at the behest of developers, and frequently against residents' wishes, they're stomped on by city and county commissioners as many as 12,000 times a year.

No wonder Hometown Democracy, a grass roots movement cultivated by land-use attorneys Lesley Blackner and Ross Burnaman, got enough public support for a 2010 ballot to alter that landscape. It would require public votes on any changes to local growth plans.

If it passes, local officials couldn't grease corpulent developments past land-use restrictions that don't allow them. They couldn't plop 23,000 homes somewhere in Volusia and Brevard counties — the so-called Farmton Plan — when those counties' growth plans don't include them. They couldn't — unless voters say they could.

Something's needed to get officials to honor growth-management plans. And Hometown Democracy appears an earnest, provocative and intriguing way of making them do so.

But we can't support it. Hometown Democracy is far from the panacea it's cracked up to be. And it's not even the best balm on the market.

Yes, the burden to local officials of placing land-use changes on the ballot might impose some self-discipline. But still thousands would likely come to a public vote. And at a grievous cost.

One casualty would likely be the informed voter. Hometown Democracy's advocates say residents could end up voting on plan amendments just once or twice a year, when other elections are held.

But imagine. Even if the Hometown Democracy cudgel gets officials to put 4,000 instead of 12,000 amendments on the ballot, voters in some counties or cities could still have to weigh the merits of six, 12, 24 or more land-use amendments.Informed voters wouldn't just have to navigate the ballot's pedantic land-use language; they'd have to suffer months of electioneering by those wanting their vote. And because developers would almost always trump grass roots organizations in spending, they'd stand a good chance of winning anyway.

The cost to local governments of including the land-use amendments on ballots would soar into the millions. And it would pain Floridians who vote absentee. A ballot that now costs about 90 cents in postage could triple when weighted down by more amendments.

There's a better way.

While time remains before the 2010 election, state lawmakers should pass a law making it impossible for local commissions to alter their land-use plans without a super-majority vote. Far fewer proposals would clear that higher hurdle — four votes on a five-member commission, five votes on a seven-member council. That would keep decisions in the hands of those we elect to make decisions, while acknowledging that it ought to be more difficult to change a planning blueprint than to pass a resolution honoring Boy Scouts.

Do that, and lawmakers could eliminate the strongest justification for putting plan amendments in voters' hands.

Do nothing, as they've done so often, and lawmakers have only themselves to blame for what might happen when voters go to the polls.