Leslie Blackner’s recent guest commentary tries to paint a picture of how great life would be if Amendment 4 passes. She avoids telling you about the cost.
Florida TaxWatch estimates that direct cost to the taxpayers throughout Florida for these special elections would be $44.6 million to $83.4 million annually.
EDITORIAL: The Miami Herald recommends NO on Amendment 4.
Source:
The Miami Herald
Date:
October 20, 2010
Amendment 4
At first glance, Amendment 4 seems just the ticket to stop the suburban sprawl that's oozing out from Florida's urban centers. It would require local governments to put all changes to their comprehensive development plans to a public vote. The intent is to give residents control over local land-use decisions because elected officials have done such a poor job of it.
But there are significant drawbacks. If the amendment, called Hometown Democracy, is approved, taxpayers would have to pay the costs of holding an election every single time a city or county land-use plan is changed. That could add up to a lot of money that would be better spent on other government services.
I note the recent article "Rezoning opponents win a battle in Tara." How could that happen? Many Amendment 4 proponents would lead us to believe that all the town and city boards are in the pockets of developers and builders -- and that the people have no say in the final decision of planning boards and county and city commissioners. Don't the amendment's supporters know that the majority of applications for rezoning and exceptional changes to comprehensive plans are turned down after long periods of planning, official presentations and, especially, compulsory meeting with citizens who live in the neighborhoods affected by proposed changes? Of course they know, but they prefer to have us believe that the efforts of developers are usually and quickly approved. Hogwash!
Featured
Amendment 4 would result in chaos
Source:
Daytona Beach News Journal
Date:
October 16, 2010
The battle over Amendment 4 doesn't have quite the same visibility as the races for governor and U.S. Senate, but the voters' decision on this ballot initiative could have a greater impact on the future of Florida than any of the candidate vs. candidate electoral contests.
With early voting beginning tomorrow, we urge voters in Volusia and Flagler counties to consider the economic and political consequences of Amendment 4 and vote "no" on this radical change in land-use planning.
The News-Journal editorial board is not endorsing candidates in the election. This decision was based on our commitment to maintaining an independent stance on political issues and our desire to avoid partisan labels. But ballot questions are a different matter. In some instances, we will weigh in on constitutional amendments, especially when we believe a great deal is at stake and the issues involved are clear-cut.
Amendment 4 on the November ballot is a deeply flawed attempt to address a genuine problem.
We recommend a "no" vote.
Many Floridians are justifiably frustrated with how the state mismanaged growth over the last several decades, particularly with the way local planning officials continuously made exceptions in comprehensive plans for developers. The resulting overbuilding created traffic congestion, strained public utilities, gobbled up natural resources and generally caused so many headaches that, in many eyes, were not offset by the increased jobs and tax revenues growth also brought.
Residents believe their elected officials didn’t represent their interests, and in many instances ignored their complaints and pleas for change.
Featured
Amendment 4: Vote no - Wrong solution
Source:
The Florida Times-Union
Date:
October 16, 2010
There seems to be some disagreement over how many ballot items voters would face if Amendment 4 passes.
Amendment 4 would require a vote of the people for changes to comprehensive plans that have been passed by local authorities.
Proponents say that a handful of changes, about four or five, would be the norm for most ballots, and that they would take place at regularly scheduled elections.
But as this page has reported, we asked Jacksonville's planning director how many comprehensive plan changes in 2009 would have required a vote. His answer: a stunning 67. Imagine a ballot with 67 land use issues.
In another year, during a decline in the economy, there were 37 changes applied for.
Whether there are 37 or 67 comp plan changes, those are too numerous to place on a ballot that is already full of elections and referenda.
Voters couldn't possibly be informed on them. The result would be a battle between special interests - developers on one side and opponents on the other.
Proposal would further complicate planning without ensuring better results
One year ago, Lesley Blackner - the leading proponent of proposed Amendment 4 -- told a crowd in Sarasota that, as a result of the ballot initiative, "Maybe Florida will get the debate over growth that it needs."
Maybe not.
here are many very good reasons to vote "no" on this unneeded amendment but I will constrain the urge to emulate its proponents by spouting demagoguery. I urge voters in St. Johns County and the rest of Florida to learn more about Amendment 4 and make a decision based on these facts and not its name.
When you first hear about Amendment 4, the Hometown Democracy ballot proposal that would require public votes on changes to local growth plans, your gut tells you, "Yeah, I can see the point of voting for that."
Ours did. Until we looked into it and quickly came to appreciate what a disaster Hometown Democracy would be for Florida.
Granted, the repeated refusal of local governments to honor their comprehensive plans for growth has resulted in the approval of far too many developments that strain local resources, harm wildlife and feed sprawl. And if Hometown Democracy were to pass, it's quite possible the public would reject some unnecessary projects that developer-smitten officials would embrace.
But the cost of implementing Hometown Democracy would overwhelm Floridians. Its benefits are fewer than advertised. And the unbridled growth that gave rise to it has ebbed. Voters should reject it.
Featured
EDITORIAL: Amendment review: No on No. 4
Source:
Northwest Florida Daily News
Date:
October 7, 2010
Amendment 4 on Florida’s November ballot will, if adopted, require voter approval before local governments can change their comprehensive land-use plans, the blueprints they use to guide future development, densities and so forth. There are so many things wrong with this amendment it’s difficult to know where to start.
So let’s begin by stating the obvious: Amendment 4 is intended to be a growth killer. Its backers include environmental groups that put a premium on scaling back growth.
It would kill growth by killing development.
And by killing development, it would kill jobs.
Helping to Stop Admendment 4
Join the conversation
