And you learn that Hometown Democracy shifts many of the planning and zoning decisions from professionals that have spent a career working through the critical issues to all the voters. America was not founded as a Democracy with majority rule but as a Republic in which elected officials are selected by the people to study the issues and do what is best for their constituents.
The City of St. Pete Beach is the first city in Florida to select Hometown Democracy. It has been a nightmare. When individual voters are presented with potentially hundreds of referendums in each election cycle… nothing happens. The practice of “voting on everything” creates information overload. The result is exactly what the “Hometown Democracy” folks want to happen: no growth, no economic development & no new jobs. They have their own piece of paradise and they don’t want anything to happen in their backyard. They use the word democracy as a marketing buzzword and ask, “how dare someone not like Democracy? That’s like turning your back on motherhood and apple pie“.
Don’t let them distort the issues… please visit http://www.florida2010.org to learn more on this critical topic.
March 15, 2010 at 10:53 am
This post is just regurgitation from Floridians for Smartert Growth.
Do you know anything about amendment 4 personlly, or are you just spreading chamber of commerce prpaganda?
Floridians for Smarter Growth point to events in St Pete Beach to prove that Hometown Democracy can’t work. They claim the voters implemented a Hometown Democracy model, but then Hometown “disciples” (love that line) STILL SUED to stop everything!!!!!! NOT TRUE. Such a clever plot, courtesy of the same crew that is fronting a deceptive look-alike petition to derail Hometown Democracy, Amendment 4. So what, pray tell, caused the “nightmare at St. Pete Beach?”
Well, a developer backed PAC used a provision in the St. Pete Beach charter that lets citizens pass ordinances via petition. Lots of Florida city charters have this provision. They drafted 4 petitions: 3 to change the zoning code and 1 to overhaul the city comp plan. They got the people to sign enough petitions, then they went to the city commission and demanded to “put them on the ballot.” The City rightly refused because state law requires that no land use law can be adopted without 2 public hearings. (All land use changes are made law via ordinance.) So the
developer PAC sued the City to force it to put the petitions on the ballot. While that suit was pending, there was a city commission election, and new (developer backed) commissioners elected!! Of course, one of the first things they did was settle the lawsuit and put the petitions on the ballot. So several St. Pete Beach voters filed suit claiming 1) the land use changes violate state law and 2) they had very tricky ballot titles and summaries. The court ruled to allow the issues to stay on the election ballot because the ballots had already been printed at great expense to taxpayers. The 4 petitions were approved at the election. The court has still not ruled on the lawsuit and doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to do so. Their ruling could overturn the election results and render the whole issue moot. FACT #1: The litigation in St. Pete Beach is totally unrelated to what would happen if Hometown Democracy, Amendment 4 is passed. This is not the Hometown Democracy process, which follows the lawful requirements of the State’s Growth Management Act requiring public hearings, DCA review, and allows for give and take between government, citizens and the applicant. Under Hometown Democracy, only at the end of the process, if the commission approves the comp plan change, does it then go to referendum. We agree that all land use changes must go through full review and public hearing. Moreover, commissioners come and go. And you never know what they are going to do until they get elected. Then, as we all know, it’s often too late. All the more reason we need Amendment 4.
FACT#2: In 2006, St. Pete Beach voters adopted a charter amendment putting city comprehensive plan changes that “affect five or more parcels” to referendum for the voters, after going through the entire growth-management mandated process, including public hearings, DCA review, and approval by the city commission. It is accurate to say that this charter provision is a mini form of Hometown Democracy. Indeed, this process has worked in St. Pete Beach without controversy. Two comprehensive plan amendment items that were on St. Pete Beach’s recent ballot, which had gone through the Hometown-Democracy-style process, were approved by the voters without controversy or litigation. Thus these two comp-plan amendments demonstrate
the workability and success of a Hometown Democracy-style referendum.
March 16, 2010 at 4:22 am
I think that the term “democracy” is a brilliant marketing and branding move that will have the exact opposite result. Local governments will be crippled by the rules, regulations and litigation and the Hometown “disciples” will achieve their victory when no development ever happens again.
To quote Tampa real estate broker Eric Odum, “I am all about controlled growth, but this bill will send Florida’s economy in to a tailspin that would take decades from which to recover. Its funny how many hate construction and development, but those same people don’t want to pay for an educational system that would make our state more fertile for developing other industries. Face it. We are married to the construction industry in Florida and Passing this bill would be a serious nail in the coffin.”
March 16, 2010 at 11:41 am
I think the term “Smart Growth” is brilliant marketing and branding and has exactly the opposite result.
Makes you think you are getting something good when all you are really getting is more development.
Ever heard of the word divorce?
The reason we are in the coffin is thanks to overdevelopment.
Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 didn’t put us there. The status quo you are anxious to maintain did.
March 16, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Jill, I am curious what you do for a living.
March 18, 2010 at 3:09 pm
thanks for joining in on this discussion on my blog…
this discussion is exactly the sort of two sided debate that our state needs.
Dave
March 16, 2010 at 2:42 pm
It’s amazing the nonsense being spouted by the Amendment 4 opponents about St. Pete Beach.
They only had six referenda in three years under their mini Amendment 4. They all passed, so it certainly didn’t stop any development – and in fact helps prove that voters will not just reject all Comp Plan amendments as they assume.
The litigation they’re talking about concerned a huge development increase that passed on the ballot but failed to have public hearings first, as the law and Amendment 4 require. And it was in 2008, so even without the lawsuits there’s no way in this economy that it would be built yet – so again no constraint on development occurred.
Yet they are cranking out ads showing papers blowing across vacant streets and boarded up storefronts, and article after article, claiming that St. Pete proves that Amendment 4 will destroy our economy.
It’s just all a lie, pure and simple. How can anyone believe a word the opponents of Amendment 4 are saying when the keep spouting garbage like this?
— Dan Lobeck
March 18, 2010 at 3:03 pm
David:
Well put! Basically, Hometown Democracy (what a misleading name) it should be Hometown Anarchy. That is what the result seems to have been in St Pete Beach. By creating a system where the people have to vote on everything you create a system where nothing can happen. The people cannot be informed voters, there is just too much information for them in their normal lives to absorb; they just vote with the flow of emotion that is extant in the community at the time of the vote.
If enacted, this gridlock is what will happen state wide, and you can bet that the following will happen:
1. It will become virtually impossible to get anything new approved that involves any change at all in zoning or land use.
2. It will become prohibitively expensive to mount a political campaign to gain approval from the “people”.
3. Very little will get approved and built.
4. Existing projects will gain value because of the lack of new projects to compete with them.
In other words, Hometown Democracy is the biggest “no growth” legislation ever conceived in the state of Florida and the Nation. Florida is already losing net population. If this passes you will see an acceleration of the rate at which people are moving elsewhere to find opportunities. They won’t be here in real estate any more.
Jim
March 18, 2010 at 6:27 pm
David:
Glad you felt my comment was of use to you in your blog.
The proposed legislation will drive a nail through the heart of Florida’s economy. Like it or not; growth has been and will remain one of the most important sectors of our economy. To destroy an entire sector of the economy in the worst recession since the Great Depression is just “suicidal”.
I urge our citizens to reject this initiative for what it is, “a move to eliminate our form of government, We are a Republic. Let your elected officials do their job and if they don’t, vote them out. That is how we solve problems; we cannot throw these matters on an uniformed and ill prepared populace and expect anything but a disaster.
Jim
March 18, 2010 at 7:13 pm
The whole purpose behind Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 is giving people who live here more say in how they want their communities to grow.
The reason our taxes are going up and our economy is in the skids is because out of control growth does not pay for itself. There is no doubt that Florida has seen tremendous growth in the last 20 years and now we are paying for it.
If development was such a good revenue source, Florida should be in great shape.
But the reality is, there are thousands of half empty subdivisions, thousands of existing homes on the market and no one is buying them. How will building more get us out of this mess?
Right now, our city and county land use plans have, on the books, designations that allow development for over 100 million people. Florida’s current population is about 18 million.
Considering the facts, and not the fiction, Amendment 4 is nothing to be afraid of.
In St. Pete Beach, the lawsuits were brought because the land use issues were placed on a ballot for a public vote before public hearings were held and the St. Pete Beach Commission voted on the land use changes. Essentially, the entire state-mandated growth management process was flaunted.
Under Amendment 4, that would not be the case.
The reason that St. Pete Beach residents have seen an increase in their property taxes is due to their declining property values, as is the case almost everywhere else in the State of Florida. According to the St. Pete times yesterday ” (St. Pete Beach) City Manager Mike Bonfield said that property values have decreased more than 10 percent, and that as a result, the town would still be taking in $385,000 less in property tax collections — even with a higher tax rate. The tax rate increase is needed “to fund a variety of services we provide in the city,” Bonfield said.
Only changes to land use would be subject to a vote so unless your commission approves hundreds of land use changes to your comprehensive plan, you won’t be voting on hundreds of items.
The point is, a comprehensive plan is supposed to be your local government’s roadmap for future growth. The state already mandates that comprehensive plans be updated every seven years. You can’t plan effectively for growth if you constantly change the plan. Besides the unallocated residential density there is at least a billion square feet of non-residential development capacity on current comprehensive plans. Enough to keep construction crews going for years and years as long as they build where the land use is already approved.
The bottom line is that Amendment 4 will give citizens the opportunity to veto land use changes approved by their local governments they don’t feel is in their community’s best interest. If they think their commission is doing the right thing, all they have to do is vote yes.
There is a ton of research out there called cost of services analysis studies that show that growth does not pay for itself – that after the initial increase to the property tax rolls, new development costs existing residents millions of dollars a year in increases cost for roads, schools, police and fire protection, etc.
Go to the division of Elections and do a committee search for contributions to Floridians for Smarter Growth AKA Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy and see who it is that does not want Amendment 4 to pass.
With all of the half built subdivisions out there and all of the homes on the market that either aren’t selling or are selling for a fraction of their value something has to give.
The answer is not to keep flooding the market with more and more homes.
March 19, 2010 at 9:37 pm
I received this today from the International Council of Shopping Centers and wanted to share it with the group. They are rallying support from their members to defeat Amendment 4.
David
—
FL: Amendment 4 Educational Campaign Launches
ICSC is engaged in a major educational campaign to defeat a ballot initiative in Florida known as Amendment 4. Formerly known as “Hometown Democracy,” Amendment 4 is designed to halt economic growth by shutting down the planning process. It would force taxpayers to fund referenda for thousands of technical planning changes each year. It is estimated that the average voter would decide 200 to 300 intricate land-use planning amendments each year if this constitutional proposal passes in November 2010.
ICSC is involved in a coalition comprised of business, labor, agricultural, planning and community groups throughout the state that was formed to defeat Amendment 4. As part of this effort, they have launched a campaign to educate Floridians about the crippling effects that this proposed amendment would have on Florida’s economy. As part of the campaign, the coalition is highlighting the detrimental impact that a local version of Amendment 4 has had on St. Pete Beach.
March 19, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I’m sure they are. But, according to the Department of Community Affairs, just in the last two years, there has been land use changes throughout the state to allow more than 1.3 billion (that’s billion with a B) square feet of non-residental development capacity.
One would think they could find somewhere to build without the necessity of a land use change.