Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Inc.

CLEARWATER – Amendment 4 is like broccoli; people either like it or they hate it. There’s no middle ground.

Last month, the Sand Key Civic Association considered taking a position on the controversial measure, which will appear on the Nov. 2 statewide ballot. But the SKCA board members realized that they didn’t have enough information with which to make an informed decision, so they invited two experts to debate the pros and cons of the proposed amendment.

The debate was held on May 5 at the Sand Key Sailing Center. St. Petersburg Councilman Karl Nurse, who was scheduled to represent the anti-amendment side, was unable to make it, so his co-chair at Tampa Bay No on Amendment 4, Belleair Commissioner Stephanie Oddo, filled in. Dan Lobeck, a Sarasota lawyer whose specialties include land use, spoke in favor of the amendment.

Amendment 4, also known as the Florida Hometown Democracy Land Use Initiative, “establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive plan, the proposed plan or amendment” must be approved by the voters in a referendum.

Opponents of the amendment say it will slow down development in an already sluggish economy and add to the cost of government.

“I don’t agree with every little thing going to election,” Oddo said, adding that density, intensity and height are the things that people really care about and they don’t want to get bogged down in the details of things they elected their city officials to do.

“What Amendment 4 does is give you a final say in your community,” Lobeck said, adding that it will rein in runaway overdevelopment. “This won’t stop development; what it will do is control development … The developers and their politicians are scared to death about this.”

“I recognize that growth management has not been the best in Florida, but Amendment 4 is not the answer,” Oddo said, adding that every major newspaper in the state has taken an editorial position against the amendment.

“The newspapers generally tend to favor developers, even the St. Pete Times,” Lobeck said. “Think who their advertisers are.”

When Oddo said that Amendment 4 would result in less development and therefore less property tax revenue, Lobeck replied that property taxes and home values have already dropped because of overdevelopment. Lobeck added that existing comprehensive plans allow “enough development to keep developers busy for decades” without further amendments.

Oddo said that when St. Pete Beach passed an ordinance similar to Amendment 4, the city had to increase its millage rate to cover the cost, and the amendment has hindered the redevelopment of that city. Lobeck replied that the millage rate increase was necessitated by expenses unrelated to the ordinance, and redevelopment wasn’t hindered, because St. Pete Beach voters passed every one of the six comprehensive plan amendments put to them in the last three years. He added that the cost of holding a referendum should be minimal because, unless developers are willing to pay for holding it sooner, it can be added to the ballot of the next scheduled election.

When Lobeck said that environmentalists favor Amendment 4, Oddo replied that those environmentalists should realize that under Amendment 4, a new park would require the same red tape as a new housing development.

After the participants had presented their cases, the audience members headed home to decide how they will vote on Amendment 4.

Article published on Wednesday, May 12, 2010