Andrew B. Quinn's July 13 column "Amendment 4: Give Citizens Vote" about Amendment 4 plainly wrongly simplifies a complex issue. Billed as a "solution" to Florida's growth management challenges, Amendment 4 would require a taxpayer-funded referenda for every change to a local growth plan. The Florida Supreme Court plainly indicates that Amendment 4 would trigger votes not simply on all land use items, but, in fact, on every change to a local government's comprehensive plan. Get the facts.
This is not "just an add-on to the existing process." This would hurt businesses of every size, cost thousands of jobs, and raise taxes. For Mr. Quinn to say that "voters would get to approve or veto it at the next regularly scheduled election day. That's it. No special elections required" is very misleading. If you were a business or city trying to get something changed and had to wait two years for the next regularly scheduled election, where do you think you'd be? Would waiting two years be feasible or would you try for a special election, costing taxpayers more money? Get the facts.
A local version of Amendment 4 has been "thoroughly tested" in the small Florida town of St. Pete Beach, reports the St. Petersburg Times. According to the Times, the measure has been "divisive, expensive and an impediment to much-needed redevelopment." Since adopting a local version of Amendment 4, the citizens of St. Pete Beach have seen nearly a dozen lawsuits that have cost local taxpayers over half a million dollars in legal fees. Please go to www.Florida2010.org to read more about St. Pete Beach and why organizations like the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) have publicly made a stance in opposition of Amendment 4.
