(return to media page)


Tampa Bay Business Journal, September 11, 2007

Debate allows business, citizens voices to be heard


by Michael Hinman

Opponents to a state constitutional amendment initiative fear election-day ballots would be cluttered up with endless land development issues that could halt growth altogether. But proponents for Hometown Democracy say their efforts could force builders to live within their currently zoned means and give citizens the ultimate voice in land use decisions.

Both sides met Tuesday morning during a breakfast debate hosted by the Tampa Bay Business Journal to discuss how much input the general population should have in how land is developed in their community.

"I think it's important to understand that the title of this [debate] is 'Hometown Democracy,' and voting is fundamental to democracy," said Kenneth Weiss, a corporate tax attorney who represents Citizens for Responsible Growth and is a proponent of the constitutional initiative that would bring all changes to municipal comprehensive plans to a referendum. "Elected officials don't listen to the polls, and this is a reaction to that. Citizens have consistently been supportive of their right to vote, and this is what this is about."

Weiss first got involved in the efforts to bring growth and development issues directly to voters when city officials in Treasure Island approved building heights of 100 feet, as opposed to the 50-foot limits being proposed in a referendum. But while Weiss argued that voters should make those decisions, former state legislator Bob Henriquez said elected officials are put into office for a reason.

"Right now, we have a people-oriented process," said Henriquez, who opposes the Hometown Democracy amendment. "That allows folks to differ with a land-use amendment propositioning to go before their local officials, and allow it to be decided by folks in a very deliberative process. If there is a lot of money being waged in a war on a particular comp plan, there is a lot more money in the political system."

Who has the better plan?
The Florida Chamber of Commerce has launched a competing constitutional amendment initiative through the group Floridians for Smarter Growth that would create options for some comprehensive plan changes to go before voters but limits them to those petitioned through local supervisor of elections offices.

"It's just a more reasonable way to address growth management," said Adam Babington, the director of coalitions and initiatives for the Florida Chamber of Commerce. "It's not a perfect solution, but it's far better than how Hometown Democracy is proposed."

The second proposed amendment is nothing more than a device to "trick" voters however, said local business owner and Hometown Democracy supporter Joe Redner, who holds about $20 million worth of land in Hillsborough County.

"The processes they propose make it virtually impossible" to get something on the ballot, Redner said. "If you have to go down there and sign up at the supervisor of elections office, we can't get people to the polls now. How are we going to get them down there?"

John Hendrick, a Tallahassee-based attorney who is the growth manager and sprawl chairman of the environmental group Sierra Club, said the Chamber's measure would do virtually nothing to help control growth in the state.

"If we did what Mr. Babington proposes, all the people, all the citizens would be in the same boat again," Hendrick said. "That is why the fundamental changes are needed at this level."

Without some type of control over what goes on the ballot, voting during elections and special elections could be an unbearable process, Babington said.

"Instead of voting on everything, we can vote on the issues that the voters care about," he said. "Instead of having all comp plan changes on the ballot, 10 percent of the voters get to the supervisor of elections office and vote on a particular plan change that will go to the ballot. Instead of 200 to 300 ballots every year, there will be two or three. That is the essential difference between the two" proposals.

Jumping in line
Different media publications have reported that some developers are trying to get in ahead of a possible implementation of Hometown Democracy initiatives by rezoning large parcels of land they are not even ready to develop yet, said Business Journal editor Alexis Muellner, who moderated the event.

"It just goes to show how easy it is to get what they want," Redner said of the developers. "They can go ahead and influence the Legislature to do anything they want. How is this rush going to be effective unless they do something?"

But the process isn't easy, said Linda Loomis Shelley, an attorney with Fowler White Boggs Banker, who specializes in government land use law.

"It takes at least four public hearings, maybe more," said Shelley, who expressed opposition to Hometown Democracy. "There are dozens of meetings between staff and applicants. There are comments by many state agencies. There are reports by the Department of Community Affairs that you must respond to, and there is a review process to make sure you come up to the minimum criteria. It takes nine months to a year to go through the process."

In addition, zoning changes and the like wouldn't be covered under Hometown Democracy if it were to pass, Henriquez said.

"If they are rezoning, they already have the comp plan," he said. "You can't rezone something that the comp plan doesn't support."

Home on the ranch
A lot of the opposition to Hometown Democracy centers on whether voters can understand complex land development proposals enough to vote for them on the ballot, but Weiss of Citizens for Responsible Growth said it's nothing more than an attempt to short-change rather intelligent voters.

"What is going to be in front of the citizens are basic land use changes," Weiss said. "Can you understand the difference of having a five-story hotel or condominium [and] a 30-story hotel or condominium? Can you understand if you want to have your local mom and pop hotel to be torn down for condominiums or not?"

Keeping comprehensive plans the way they are would allow for less density in areas not already developed or targeted for future development, and it's something that Weiss said he's not opposed to.

"How many of you would like to live on a 1- or 5-acre ranchette compared to a condominium that is 200 feet tall?" Weiss asked. "We all know that density equals dollars."

But a world where everyone lives on sprawling ranches isn't workable for everyone, the Chamber's Babington said.

"This is not about protecting the environment or forcing more creative planning," Babington said. "It's about dealing with an agenda by people who don't want any more growth, who are fine with 5-acre ranches. But where are our police, our firefighters, our teachers and our nurses going to live? They are not going to be buying 5-acre ranches."