Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Inc.

Amendment 4, the so-called "Hometown Democracy" amendment to the Florida Constitution on the Nov. 2 ballot, sounds appealing to voters coping with urban sprawl and traffic jams while irresponsible state legislators gut growth management laws. They may believe the amendment would empower them to put a lid on undesirable development in their communities. But Amendment 4 would make things worse by creating haphazard development patterns, shifting more influence to monied special interests, spawning expensive lawsuits and undercutting recovery from the recession. The state needs to better manage growth, but this amendment is not the answer.

If oil were still gushing into the Gulf, the panel discussion I moderated Thursday at the Sarasota International Realty Conference doubtless would have gravitated to that topic. But it's not. So with the elections nearing, we have a new hot-button issue in Florida, and it's Amendment 4. That is the change to the state constitution that would require alterations of local comprehensive land-use plans to be approved by voters, after approval by elected officials. Judging by the reaction of the panelists and the audience of mostly real estate brokers, the title of the discussion, "The State of Real Estate in Florida," should have been changed to "The State of Amendment 4 in Florida." The panelists fell just short of turning red in voicing their opinions of Amendment 4. "It's really silly," said Pat Neal, president of Neal Communities, which develops land and builds houses in Manatee County. This brought a big round of applause from the audience,

Pick your cliche: Tossing the baby out with the bath water, cutting off your nose to spite your face. They both describe the trouble with Amendment 4: It's a serious overreaction to some legitimate concerns about careless growth.

Editor: This amendment goes by the name of “Hometown Democracy” and by the name alone who would not vote yes, it sounds like what our nation was founded upon … but it is far from that. It is an amendment that goes against what our founding fathers put into play. Our founding fathers created a system of democracy, where voters do not make the decisions directly, but elect representatives at all levels of government, to represent the “collective interests” of their community, from the smallest of babies to senior elders. On a local level we have been charged with providing leadership and guidance necessary for efficient provision of municipal services and effective operation of the city government. Our position also has a quasi judicial component where we have taken an oath to take the emotion out of our decision to review the law as it applies and make a decision based on those laws, both fairly and consistently, the fundamental principle of “home rule.”