(return to media page)


South Florida Business Journal, December 18, 2008

Fla. high court: Smarter Growth Amendment can go on ballot

By Susan Miller

The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a proposed amendment relating to growth management complies with the requirements needed to get it on the 2010 ballot.

The proposed Smarter Growth Amendment can now compete with another proposal, dubbed the Florida Hometown Democracy initiative, if both camps get enough signatures to put their proposed amendments before voters.

Smarter Growth, so far, has collected 443,511 of the estimated 676,000 needed to get the amendement on the ballot. Hometown Democracy has collected 616,571, according to state records. However, those signatures have not yet been verified.

The largely business-backed Smarter Growth Amendment would allow Floridians to call for voter approval of changes to local growth management plans through a citizen petition. Voter approval of growth management plan changes would be required if 10 percent of the voters in the city or county sign a petition calling for such a referendum.

�We are pleased by the court�s decision,� said Ryan Houck, executive director of Floridians for Smarter Growth, in a press release. �At a time when many Floridians are concerned about our state�s fragile economy, Hometown Democracy is simply not worth the risk. Our amendment is proof positive that there are better ideas out there.�

The competing amendment, which already was cleared by the state Supreme Court, would require voter approval of changes in local comprehensive plans, which say where growth can take place and what kind. As a result, citizens would face the prospect of having to vote on everything from the most controversial to simple changes coming before growth managers.

Smarter Growth would require such votes only through petitions that could be signed only in local elections offices. The amendement, Houck said, is crafted so that voters would not have to deal with the smaller "housekeeping" matters that come before planners.

"The other amendment is a classic case of the right problem, but the wrong solution," he said.

The court, in its ruling, rejected Hometown Democracy�s argument that the ballot title and summary were misleading.

Not all justices agreed.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Barbara Pariente wrote that it was misleading in that �the amendment gives the voters only a limited opportunity to approve or disapprove plans or amendments� and the ballot summary �omits the significant details providing that the voter must sign the petition in person.�

Justice R. Fred Lewis, who also dissented, called the ballot title and summary �wordsmithing� that makes �empty promises� and fails to advise voters of �critical aspects of the proposal.�

By, Susan Miller