.jpg)
Photo by Henry Frederick
New Smyrna Beach resident Ellen Darden, who was a candidate in the 2010 primary for the County Council district 3 seat and is president-elect of the New Smyrna Beach Board of Realtors, wrote her opposition to Amendment 4 on the Nov. 2 ballot, the so-called Home Democracy initiative for voters to consider in the general election:
A “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is the metaphor that comes to mind when I consider Amendment 4. I hear this alleged growth management amendment to Florida’s Constitution, requiring a popular election every time a change is needed to every local comprehensive land use plan, described by supporters as though it is just a common sense, no down side proposal.
They contend that it won’t be expensive; it won’t be hard to manage; it won’t harm our citizens and their employment. It’s simply a way to allow local people decide for themselves on local issues. They say, don’t let the evil opponents scare you with nonsense!
My jaw drops when I hear a proponent characterize this dangerous proposal as such, knowing he is either purposefully disingenuous or has tunnel vision on the subject. I hear examples of poorly executed growth management given as the rationale for supporting Amendment 4 as though it would solve our growth issues rather than destroy any possibility of growth.
What comes wrapped in a pretty package sometimes turns out to be not so pretty.
I have lived in Florida for most of my life, and I remember from my young childhood its extensive wild and natural beauty before being “discovered.”
I’m a supporter of an intelligent approach to growth management in order to protect and conserve as much of what is left as possible. This, however, is not the purpose of Amendment 4, which has the potential to completely destroy the economy and quality of life in our state.
The immense harm to the people of Florida from this misbegotten proposal in lost jobs, higher taxes, millions of wasted dollars and an ever-weakening economy is projected in study after study by non-partisan and reputable organizations such as Florida TaxWatch.
But why just go on well-researched projections when real life experience is available?
Take a look at the miserably destructive outcomes experienced by St. Pete Beach, after citizens implemented a local version of Amendment 4 some four years ago. The first time voters went to the polls, deciding in favor of changes to their local comp plan that would permit new projects, they got a big surprise. The same special interest groups who had convinced them to adopt the policy of voting on every zoning change immediately sued to overturn the election. It seems they didn’t much care for the pro-growth outcomes “stupidly” approved by the voters.
As the citizens of this once thriving small city have learned, what was sold to them as a fair, smart and democratic method of positively influencing the community’s future has instead brought economic disaster and blight. Twenty-eight months later, the litigation to the will of the voters continues at a cost of over $750,000 in legal fees thus far.
Police and fire fighters have been laid off and property taxes have risen in order to pay lawyers. The attractive economic development projects citizens voted for have languished due to the litigation, and trashy vacant lots along with shuttered, deteriorating buildings stand as daily reminders of how they were duped.
On Oct. 12, the members of the St. Pete Beach City Commission went so far as to pass a formal resolution describing in detail the horrors they are experiencing and pleading with Floridians to vote NO on Amendment 4.
As demonstrated in St. Pete Beach, an unworkable boondoggle that is Amendment 4 could bankrupt cities and counties across Florida, destroying any chance we have to pull ourselves out of the deep recession in which we are currently mired.
With up to 8,000 or more changes proposed to local land use management plans statewide each year, voting on these technical, complex changes is not in any fashion the breeze described by the Amendment 4 supporters.
And have they factored in the cost to taxpayers of holding all those elections?
We have a system in place that works just fine when we citizens pay attention and get involved: representative democracy by which we knowledgeably vote for members of our community to speak for us and vote them out if they serve us poorly.
Changes to local comp plans require public notice, public hearings and public votes by our elected representatives followed by scrutiny and, maybe, approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs before they can go into effect. This is NOT a process of backroom deal making.
Please consider your decision for or against Amendment 4 based on much more than the enticing idea of “local people voting on local issues.”
Those who promote this proposal based on that simplistic characterization may be well-intended, but we all know the destination to which the road is paved with good intentions.
Or is the destination St. Pete Beach today and the rest of Florida tomorrow?