“The Florida chapter of the American Institute of Architects has been spreading misinformation about Amendment 4 to its member architects", according to John Hedrick, Chair of Panhandle Citizens Coalition. Amendment 4 is a proposed citizen's amendment to the Florida Constitution, sponsored by Florida Hometown Democracy, a non-partisan, grassroots group. It will appear on the statewide ballot on November 2, 2010. Recent polls, including Mason-Dixon, indicate that the Nov. ballot referendum would pass amidst the worst collapse in building and construction since the Depression. Despite broad public anger at how so much overdevelopment occurred, trade associations like the one representing Florida developers, builders and architects are opposing the popular measure. “It’s as if the trade group’s leadership are stuck in the mud, frozen in place by special interests whose promises crashed Florida's economy and with it, their members' job opportunities," continues Hedrick who points out that the AIA officials misleads its members, saying: (http://www.aiafla. org/Governmental -Affairs_ Hometown- Democracy- Amendment. cfm) "... the Hometown Democracy Constitutional Amendment ... would require all rezoning and amendments to local comprehensive plans to be approved via referendum."(click, 'read more')
"Amendment 4 does not require a referendum for rezonings," said Dan Lobeck, a land use attorney and President of Control Growth Now, in Sarasota. "Amendment 4 only requires voter approval for an amendment to the very top level of local planning, that is the comprehensive land use plan, and not also the more common lower levels such as rezonings, site plans and permits." Once a developer obtains politicians’ approval to change in violation of the community’s current comprehensive plan, then, under Amendment 4, that proposed change will appear on the ballot at the next regularly scheduled election. “We should have a say before we have to pay,” is the right over a million Floridians are seeking, having signed petitions to put Amendment 4 on this fall’s ballot.
According to Amendment 4 supporters, comprehensive plan changes are too important to be left in the hands of developers and the politicians whom they readily control with their big campaign contributions and other perks. Amendment 4 will verify that major land-use changes – e.g., from agricultural to residential, or from rural to high-density residential -- are indeed made “in the public interest,” as the law requires.
People will live within their existing, agreed-upon plans much more than currently. Tax monies will finally be available to improve and revive present neighborhoods; Florida’s economy will become more stable; crowding and other disruptions from overbuilding will be a thing of the past; and businesses will at last want to relocate to our happy, well-maintained communities. Experience has shown that – without the check-and-balance this constitutional amendment will provide-- all too often major changes to the community’s shared vision of its future have been made in the developer’s private interest, and in spite of local residents’ protests. Taxpayers then get stuck with the bill for the new infrastructure and services demanded by the new developments.
“Architecture thrives in an economy where businesses are doing well. Instead, today we have shuttered businesses, jobs lost, and homes foreclosed on account of the rampant overbuilding that developers have been enabled to do by the politicians they control.,” says Hedrick. "Land use lawyers hate it, because their fees are generated by controlling votes throughout the decision tree; from community councils, where they often run proceedings, to city and county commissioners where predetermined outcomes make a mockery of public participation."
Further information is available at www.FloridaHometown Democracy. com
5 comments:
Lobeck is absolutely correct that all zoning actions will not be impacted by Amendment 4.
The problem is that FHD is spreading misinformation in the other direction.
Amendment 4 is not limited to "major land-use changes." Instead, it will apply to every change to a local comprehensive plan, including the many technical and routine changes made annually by local governments. Comprehensive plans are not just maps of a local government's long-term planning. They include hundreds of pages of text and tables dealing with all manner of things -- water and sewer improvement schedules, park locations, school construction schedules, etc.
The Supreme Court of Florida has already reviewed the scope of the Amendment and has determined it will apply to all portions of comprehensive plans.
While AIA may be wrong on the details, Amendment 4 is still an overbroad disaster waiting to happen.
You mean, it will be a bigger disaster than the disaster the builders unleashed on Florida? that couldnt happen in a million years.
Opponents of Amendment 4 love to come up with arcane and exaggerated “problems” with Amendment 4, they are lying through their teeth about every detail.
With Amendment 4, it would be good if government held a public hearing to discuss the language for the ballot and to get a legal opinion on the wording. But, if the language is not tricky and not controversial it is doubtful if there would be a challenge.
A land use change item is not too hard to understand. Something like: change the use of Palm Tree Golf Course from Commercial Recreational to High Density Residential with 25 units per acre allowed, and put in some description of the land and the uses. I don’t think a law degree is needed to understand that, believe me if most commissioners understand the change all the voters will.
Almost any item on a ballot could be challenged including bond proposals, tax proposals, charter amendments, candidates, and referenda about many issues. Voters vote on many issues some of which are challenged, most are not.
Of course, the legislature could always make court review of all ballot questions "automatic." just like citizen initiative review is mandatory by the Fla. Supreme Court. Why don't proposed constitutional amendments from the Legislature get automatic Fla. Supreme Court review? They should.
Mandated changes which Commissioners vote on to keep their plan in compliance with State law are not land use changes. These are language changes (housekeeping so to speak) to keep the land use plan document current and will not go to referendum.
The Supreme Court approved the Language of Amendment 4 and votes on LAND USE changes. Amendment 4 says Comprehensive land use plan change. The document each city and county has is a Comprehensive Plan, in that plan are land uses and other things such as traffic ways etc. The vote will be only on LAND USE changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
To illuminate the discussion, allow me to quote below from the Supreme Court's opinion discussing the scope of the Amendment.
If the FHD drafters wanted to limit the scope of the Amendment to comprehensive plan future land use map changes, they could have. They chose not to, using the vague term "comprehensive land use plan," which the Supreme Court has interpreted to encompass the entirety of a comprehensive plan. As you'll note from the below information, that is a lot of stuff that voters don't really care about.
From Supreme Court opinion:
[L]ocal comprehensive plans include multiple components, many of which do not involve strictly environmental or aesthetic considerations. Section 163.3177(6)-(7), Florida Statutes (2004), sets out the required and optional elements of comprehensive plans, which include: a capital improvement element; a future land- use plan element; a traffic circulation element (which may include a mass-transit element, a port and aviation element, a recreational traffic element, and an offstreet parking element); a sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element; a conservation element; a recreation and open space element; a housing element; a coastal management element; an intergovernmental coordination element; a transportation element; an airport master plan; a public buildings and related facilities element; a recommended community design element; a general area redevelopment element; a safety element; a historical and scenic preservation element; an economic element; and other elements that may be peculiar to, and necessary for, the area concerned. In addition, section 163.3178, Florida Statutes (2004), sets forth several components required in the coastal management element.
The annexation to the City of Hialeah west of Miami Lakes, where county commissioners moved the UDBLine is one perfect example why we need Amendment 4. This project is going to bankrupt our city.
If Amendment 4 had existed when this item came before the county commissioners, the citizens (and not the county commissioners) would have had the last vote.
Vote YES for Amendment 4.
Post a Comment