Developer-connected groups, who blindly fear and oppose the democratic right of citizens to vote their voices on behalf of their community, instead threaten the public saying, “If Amendment 4 had been law in 2006, the residents of Carrabelle would have voted on 617 minor land use questions.”- Mel Kelly, Proud Carrabelle Mayor, 2005-2007
That fraudulent statement is a lie! If Amendment 4 had been Florida law in 2006, then Carrabelle voters would have had the privilege to vote on ONLY 4 -- not 617 ! -- land-use changes to determine our community’s future in the year 2006. In fact, during my 3-year term, there would have been, in total, only eight land use changes proposed for public voting in our regular elections if Amendment 4 had been in place, NOT “HUNDREDS!”
Florida Hometown Democracy (Amendment 4) was put on the November ballot by citizen’s petition. It is in response to decades of mismanagement of Florida’s Growth Management Act. The Act, adopted in the mid-80s, was supposed to manage growth so that the state was not overdeveloped, sensitive lands and water supplies were protected, quality of life was preserved, and a person’s biggest lifetime investment, their home, was protected from being devalued by surrounding, incompatible development.
The “Growth Machine”, developers, real estate professionals, insurance companies, chambers of commerce, mortgage lenders, and county and state legislators finally drove the bus off the cliff. The result of unsustainable development was a crash in our economy, horrendous loss of jobs and homes, rising taxes and decreasing quality of life. More development will not solve the problem.
The anti-Amendment 4 crowd avoids any responsibility for this implosion while telling you Amendment 4 will worsen an economy they have already trashed. Every $1.00 in new property taxes costs approximately $1.40 to provide services; more development will not right the economy, it will increase taxes to subsidize new developments. Industries that could provide growth, such as agriculture and tourism of natural lands, are diminishing so relatively cheap farmland and waterfront properties can be developed with more unneeded houses. Nor will Amendment 4 stop development. There are enough vacant residential parcels already in the CDMP to increase Florida’s population 5-fold (not counting foreclosures). There is enough approved commercial land to build 13,000 WalMarts; 1.3 billion square feet.
Part of the Growth Management Act requires every county and city to have a Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP): It is composed of many elements such as education, transportation, and land use. The land use portion is the subject of Amendment 4. Land use is NOT zoning or variances, it is a broader picture outlining where various land use categories should be located. For example, it separates industrial uses from residential uses. It is supposed to keep the gas station out of your front yard and the rock mine out of your back yard. It lumps together compatible uses. Approval should be based on need. That is where the “Growth Machine” has run off the rails. Money for campaigns now speaks louder than the people.
Amendment 4 gives voters the final say on CDMP changes. Only after an application is approved by local government and the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee (the administrators of local plans), will the people vote. It adds a step to the process, that step is your vote at the next general election; no special elections. Land use is not difficult. People understand a request to change farmland to industrial or residential to commercial, it’s not rocket science. Some people understand better than elected officials.
The people in control don’t want you to have a seat at the table. The anti-4 campaign is spending millions to keep you from having a say. If Amendment 4 passes, the next time you are speaking against a bad project to glassy-eyed politicians, remember you will have the final say. What could be wrong with that?
7 comments:
Again we have confusion about the scope of the Amendment. Based on what the Supreme Court of Florida has already held, a "comprehensive land use plan" as provided in the Amendment is a local comprehensive plan.
Not just the local future land use map, not just the Land Use Element required in all plans -- the whole thing.
Moreover, state law requires a local government to basically revise these plans constantly. There are, for example, a bunch of changes forthcoming from a new statute passed in 2007.
So, yes, the Amendment will require voting on lots of technical changes that no one cares about.
Even if the Amendment would just affect the Land Use Element, it would still be contrary to good planning.
Most plans are based on the zoning that was in place in the late 1980s -- a sprawl scenario.
In order to reduce future sprawl and encourage infill development and "Smart Growth," you will, in many cases, need to amend a local comprehensive plan. So, if more of the same is what you want, please vote for Amendment 4. This is why Florida's planners have came out against the Amendment. They, and Katy Sorenson, know that it is not going to bring about better planning in Florida.
Zoning already in place will stay in place. To do otherwise, even if it is "bad zoning", would unleash a torrent of property rights lawsuits. We're stuck with those bad decisions. But that does not mean the voters are not able to understand change requests going forward.
Local governments must update/revise their comp plans every 7 years . Usually these changes are minor and if the voters don't care, so be it. Amendment 4 would not have happened if the planning process worked as it should. Every one of us has been impacted by a bad, incompatible project; ones that local officials passed while ignoring the wishes of the people and often times their own planners and DCA. In fact those bad decisions made Florida the epicenter of the real estate crash.
Your way is not working. Let's try giving the people a level playing field, they may surprise you.
I think Mr Allen has been drinking the cool aid. A change of land use is just that, it changes the use of the land. A technical change from a set back of 10 feet to 20 feet from a runway does not change the airport land use; it's still an airport. If the request is to change from an airport to a stadium, that's a use change. The people would vote on that. I agree with the Mayor, the required votes will be counted on one hand.
Recalls, Comp plan changes, primary elections, special elections, local elections general elections etc...
I don't think adding elections will solve the issue we have plenty of elections now mostly with dismal results.
First you must go to the source of the problem EASY and CHEAP money. Where did it come from? The Federal Reserve. Why? Because they can legally create money out of thin air (aka counterfitting).
If the cheap money wasn't available to both consumers and developers none of this would have ever happened, unfortunatey the banksters with the complicity of REPS and DEMS destroyed our economy then got on the lifeboats (bailouts) and left the rest of us on the economic equivalent of the Titanic (Can I Br Leonardo) and even threw water at us too "help" us sink faster (National Debt).
Without Sound Money you can ad amendment 400 and nothing will be fixed.
I would ask any homeowner who lives in Miami, next door, down the block or very near those new, towering mixed-used apartment buildings, how they feel about the politicians and developers who did that to them.
How can we secure our public lands, beaches, open areas, residential neighborhoods, historic places, etc., with developers, their lawyers and politicians negotiating for their benefit alone? They do not care about the subsequent costs of roads, schools, police, fire & rescue, etc., or how much it costs the taxpayers.
Citizens who go before their elected officials against a zoning or land use change are oftentimes ridiculed, not allowed to express themselves freely, limited, lied to or side tracked.
Good, bad or in-between, I am supporting Amendment 4 because we cannot allow this to continue.
Vote YES for Amendment 4.
In most places developers pay impact fees for schools, roads, libraries, police fire etc etc.
Plus there are ussualy excations for road improvements and other goodies.
The after all that $ the owners of homes, condo units or shopping center pay much more property tax to city, county, schoolboard etc than the vacant land or structure that was there before.
That does not excuse poor planning in some cases but development does pay for itself and then some when it comes to services in "most" places (City of Miami Biscayne corridor being an exception not the rule).
Anon above: New develoment does NOT pay for itself. For every $1.00 in taxes the government pays between $1.25-$1.40 for services. Impact fees have never paid the total cost of development. The best bang for your buck is vacant land including farmland (no roads,police/fire, sewer service, kids in schools or all those other services we want at bargain prices). They are donors. As we development farmland we get further and further in the hole. Now governments are reducing impact fees to "stimulate" development; more services needed. Miami-Dade estimates the initial rush of taxes from new development lasts about 2 years before service needs overwhelm income. Gotta keep building to keep up. This does not even come close measuring the decrease in quality of life as we pave the world.
Post a Comment