Here’s what voters filling out absentee ballots or going to the polls on or before Nov. 2 will read about Amendment 4:
“Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans.
“Ballot summary: Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice.”
With the exception of that final clunky phrase, Amendment No. 4 is actually pretty straight forward by amendment standards. Unlike other proposed amendments, it isn’t at risk of being contradicted, emasculated or otherwise impaired by other amendments on the same subject.
Too bad. We kind of wish it were.
Amendment No. 4 is bad public policy and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people will only read the paragraph above before deciding how to vote is the reason constitutional amendments are the worst way to govern.
Here are some more words: Future Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Natural Resources and Coastal Planning Element, Infrastructure Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Housing Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Capital Improvements Element, Historic Preservation Element, Community Facilities Element, Public School Facilities Element.
Those are just some of the things sent to the state Department of Community Affairs for approval.
We can’t even visualize how the new system of referenda for every comp plan or comp plan amendment would work.
We can say for sure it will be expensive, both for counties having to provide voters with information about every submitted amendment and for property owners seeking changes so they can exercise their property rights.
That’s even before the costs of the referenda are factored in. Elections are generally held only every two years. Counties can currently submit bunches of comp plan amendments only twice a year, including amendments it submits on behalf of county initiatives and projects.
Will referenda be set every six months, once a year, once every two years?
While we understand the sponsors and supporters of this amendment are determined “no growthers,” the effect of the amendment’s passage will be a virtual red light for any comp plan change, at least until counties and the state figure out the process for vetting, publicizing and holding referenda.
With the state just beginning to emerge from a devastating recession and property bust, such a radical change to growth management policy based on a one-paragraph explanation makes no sense. Local residents have considerable influence over planning if they are willing to exercise it.
The sponsors of Amendment 4 are seeking not to give more people a say about growth, but severely limit growth everywhere, even where residents want it or need it for their communities to prosper, or even survive.
