When voters go to the polls in November, they will find the ballot festooned with Florida constitutional measures -- including Amendment 4, euphemistically labeled by its sponsors as "Hometown Democracy." If it were to pass, the amendment would require a referendum election on any change to a city or county comprehensive land-use plan.

Such a byzantine constraint would hamstring the capacity of local government to timely react to the community's ever-changing health, safety and welfare needs and would potentially cripple Florida's efforts to resuscitate its sputtering economy.

If Amendment 4 were to pass, the command from citizens to their elected officials would be: Don't change a word in our existing land-use plan -- even a modification that would tighten up development restrictions -- unless we first say it's OK.

One need not be clairvoyant to see that if Amendment 4 becomes law, the negative energy radiating from its implementation will fuel senseless litigation. Its mandatory referendum requirement promises to trigger legal challenges aimed at every facet of the election, including the length, scope and clarity of the ballot summary; the timing of the vote; and who must bear the massive election cost. The recent experience of the city of St. Petersburg Beach provides ample evidence of this.

Voters in that small community adopted amendments to their own city charter requiring voter approval of certain land-use changes. Even though those charter amendments were less sweeping than Amendment 4, they nevertheless spawned a series of lawsuits and countersuits entangling the city and growth opponents and proponents. Thus far, the diminutive city has spent $765,000 on legal fees -- and the battle goes on.

Comprehensive land-use plans are needed to guide city and county growth and development. Under current law, decisions to change these plans are delegated exclusively to our elected county and city commissioners (or council members), subject to oversight by a state planning agency. These decisions are never made in a vacuum.

In addition to soliciting input from the public at the advertised hearings and receiving advice from professional staff, the commissioners devote months of intense study to assessing whether the proposed changes will benefit the greater community. But the ultimate safeguard against improvident decisions rests with the voters, who have the power to send commissioners into retirement if they flagrantly vote "wrong" on land-use plan changes.

To comprehend the absurd reach of Amendment 4, consider this real-life illustration: Over the years, a local church acquired adjacent lots on which it planned to rebuild and expand its facilities. Some of the lots were in the city of Sarasota; the rest were in unincorporated Sarasota County. In order to consolidate land-use regulation for the church campus under a single jurisdiction, the church asked the city to annex the unincorporated lots, triggering a requirement for the city to change its comprehensive plan to depict the annexed lands on its land-use map.

If Amendment 4 had been in effect (and, thank goodness, it wasn't), it would have required this minor change in the map to be approved in a referendum election in which voters residing clear across town would have been summoned to decide the destiny of the small church. Even though the measure would likely have passed, the election cost alone would have consumed the lion's share of the church's finances, making the modest expansion impractical.

Admittedly, it is proper for governmental actions to require prior voter approval when they dip into our wallets for new taxes or for an increase in public debt limits. But the concept of routinely rounding up voters and shepherding them to the polls to scroll down page after page of ballot summaries befogged with technical planning gibberish would most assuredly beget voter fatigue, apathy, and, eventually, rebellion. If indeed there is a need to further strengthen public participation in land-use plan changes, let's search for more practical and effective ways, ones that don't push voters over the edge. For these reasons, we implore you to join with us in voting no on Amendment 4.

Dan Bailey and Charlie Bailey are land-use attorneys with Williams Parker Harrison Dietz & Getzen, in Sarasota.