(return to media page)Panama City News Herald , August 27, 2007
Land-use proposal seeking supportBy Ryan Burr
A proposed constitutional amendment on land-use changes needs backing in the Panhandle, and proponents are trying to drum up support, while opponents are pushing for a referendum on a competing measure.
So far, support here has been minimal for the Florida Hometown Democracy amendment, which would require a referendum on all comprehensive land-use plan changes. Comprehensive plans dictate what and where businesses, residences and other structures can be built.
The Florida Constitution requires at least 8 percent of registered voters in half of the state’s 25 congressional districts sign the petition that would put the amendment on the ballot.
Bay County is in the Second congressional district, and according to the state Division of Elections, 1,766 people in Bay County have signed the petition. Lesley Blackner, a Palm Beach attorney who is one of the amendment organizers, said she knew a few people offhand who were supporters, including Beach resident Diane Brown and former Panama City Mayor Lauren DeGeorge.
Many Panhandle residents are unaware of the amendment, Blackner said.
“It’s a big job to motivate people (to sign a petition) and get the word out,” Blackner said.
Since July 2006, Blackner said about 400,000 of the 611,000 needed signatures have been obtained. Hometown Democracy backers have until Feb. 1 to reach that target, which is 10 percent of the state’s registered voters.
County Commission Chairman Mike Nelson characterized the petition as anti-growth and said most people like the development that has occurred in recent years.
“For a long time, the Panhandle was the forgotten part of Florida. South Florida has already been built up, but there is still land to develop here. Most people think it will bring jobs,” Nelson said.
Opposition
One of the most ardent opponents of Hometown Democracy is the Florida Chamber of Commerce.
“Things like comprehensive plan changes are already decided by the local governments. They’re the best people, and they have the experts to determine what’s in the best interest of the community,” said Jennifer Davis, spokeswoman for the chamber.
The chamber is one of the coalition members, including the Florida Realtors Association and Florida Home Builders Association, that has started its own petition for a similar constitutional amendment, called Floridians for Smarter Growth.
Ostensibly, the smarter growth amendment would allow Floridians to call for voter approval of comprehensive plan changes — but only through a citizen petition in each case, and only if 10 percent of the voters in the respective city or county sign a petition demanding the vote.
Blackner said the chamber-backed amendment would be rendered useless because of the onerous requirements for people to have a vote.
Signatures are being taken “at a rapid pace” for the smarter growth amendment, said Michael Caputo, executive director of Floridians for Smarter Growth. He declined to reveal the current number of signatures received, saying that keeping that information confidential is “a tactical advantage” against the opposing amendment.
“The more people find out about (Hometown Democracy), the more signatures we get,” Caputo said.
If both amendments are placed on the November 2008 ballot and both pass, language in smarter growth would supersede Hometown Democracy’s, Davis said.
The chamber helped draft the smarter growth amendment, she added, because the Hometown Democracy amendment is “for no growth … and there should be another choice.”
Opponents of Hometown Democracy also refer to it as the “Vote on Everything amendment.” On the Web site for Floridians for Smarter Growth, it states the opposing amendment will “require all Floridians to vote 200 to 300 times more each year, deciding even the tiniest planning change. This will lead to far less planning, increased urban sprawl, much more traffic, higher property taxes, and anemic municipal services.”
The site also warns of a shattered economy if Hometown Democracy passes.
Blackner said she believes local governments are changing their comprehensive plans far too often, which she said is contrary to the spirit of the Growth Management Act, which was signed in the 1980s requiring local government planning for growth.
“The (comprehensive) plan becomes meaningless, corrupt and broken” with frequent changes, she said. “Our amendment puts a backbone in the plan, and it will make speculative development more difficult.”
But Lois La Seur, Walton County’s planning manager, said the frequent changes are more a matter of necessity and not against the intention of the Growth Management Act.
A variety of conditions might warrant changing the plan, La Seur said. Someone might need a different land use so that it conforms to the current land-use map, or someone might want to expand a business or want higher density to build a subdivision.
And the Growth Management Act itself is revised each year, requiring local governments to change their plans accordingly, she said.
“The comprehensive plan is a planning document that should be regularly changed to reflect changing conditions,” La Seur said. “You can only predict where your growth is going to occur so accurately.”