"The Pot Calling The Kettle Black" (to say something about someone else which is actually true of you yourself) ...
I keep getting news releases from this young man, Ryan Houck, (who worked for U.S. Senator Martinez) of Floridians for Smarter Growth. Floridians for Smarter Growth were responsible for the signature revocation lawsuit when they successfully lobbied the legislature to pass a statute allowing for it. The Florida Supreme Court has upheld a lower court opinion that the 2006 law was unconstitutional. Who is paying for this?
We all are.
What I find particularly ironic is this:
Floridians for Smarter growth members, like Houck, keep calling the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment the “vote for everything amendment” so I started thinking about that.
Their own amendment would require 10% of the electorate to petition in person at the local supervisor of elections office to get land use changes on the ballot. So much for encouraging the disabled and elderly and those without transportation to participate in the growth-management process.
And how about the provision in their amendment that states the Floridians for Smarter Growth Amendment supersedes all others?
What gall.
Maybe they should have to have a petition signed by 10% of the electorate before they are allowed to take land use change requests before our local officials.
If our local governments were more judicious with their granting of land use changes – only issuing those which were necessary to allow for fulfilling long-term growth goals - there wouldn’t be that many referenda for taxpayers to have to vote on. Another incongruity which always leaves me shaking my head is that when it comes right down to it, it is the very backers of Floridians for Smarter growth, - builders, developers, planners and land use attorneys - who are the ones crowding the commission chambers requesting the very land use changes they now fear are going to cost taxpayers money if they have the chance to vote on them.
These builders and developers and planners and land use attorneys are the ones who threaten to make local governments spend taxpayer dollars defending lawsuits if they don’t get their way.
Why don’t they exercise restraint and only look to build their subdivisions and high rises in areas where the land use designations are already in place? That would cut the proposals which would have to go to referendum down to zero.
When the growth the backers of Floridians for Smarter Growth keep insisting we need does not pay for itself and requires more roads and schools and fire stations and police and libraries and parks and infrastructure (With New Law SB 360, the developers are off the hook on roads) who pays for it?
We do.
Why shouldn’t we get to vote?
They keeps saying that FHD will cause a permanent recession in this state. Well, look at where we are today and how we have gotten here. It was a direct result of the housing bubble created by unnecessary growth and the excess inventory has caused a foreclosure spiral.
3 comments:
"Why don’t they exercise restraint and only look to build their subdivisions and high rises in areas where the land use designations are already in place? That would cut the proposals which would have to go to referendum down to zero."
This remains the largest misconception about Hometown Democracy. The passage of Hometown Democracy will require votes on all changes to comprehensive plans. Comprehensive plans are much more than "land use designations."
In fact, the maps and text that control what can be built where are a small part of each comprehensive plan. There are multiple other, often highly technical, sections of comprehensive plans that will be amended. In fact, state law requires some of them to be amended each year. All of these changes would require a vote under Hometown Democracy.
So, yes, Hometown Democracy will require voters to review and vote on, for lack of a better word, everything.
Whatever those changes are, technical or otherwise, they affect existing homeowners. Who better to determine which of those changes would be in their long-term best interest?
Most elected officials serve less than four years, their long-term interests last as long as the next election period.
Please stop underesitmating the abilities of the general population to decide what is best for them.
Taxpayers foot the bill for millions of dollars worth of studies and plans that are often disregarded or ignored for years by local legislators, especially if they are for conservation efforts such as wildlife corridors or rural protections.
Local governments have abused their powers of office in favor of development interests for far too long and what we have to show for it is millions of unbuilt allocated housing units, unprecedented foreclosure rates and employment and plumeting property values. It is time to change the status quo.
Here's a good example of a commission that is bending over backwards to give developers the advantage. It's also a good example of how some of those highly technical land use changes are made necessary to further development interests.
Ask most of the residents of rural Martin County and they will tell you the issue is quite simple. Leave our plan alone.
http://palmbeachpost.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=COLUMN%3A+Desperately+seeking+answers&expire=&urlID=409143545&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.palmbeachpost.com%2Fopinion%2Fcontent%2Fopinion%2Fepaper%2F2009%2F08%2F23%2Fa22a_swartzcol_0823.html&partnerID=491
Post a Comment