Ian Black
Update to this post 5.5.10
AMENDMENT 4 OPENS THE FLOODGATES FOR SPECIAL INTEREST LAWSUITS
By Ryan Houck
This November, voters will be faced with a number of tough decisions at the ballot box. Fortunately, one of the most important decisions should also be the easiest. Amendment 4, a “Vote on Everything” proposal, would kill jobs, raise taxes, and lead to endless litigation at taxpayer expense.
Amendment 4 has been referred to as a ‘stimulus package for special interest lawyers’. And for good reason; this proposal would add costly new layers of bureaucratic red-tape to an already complicated planning process. It would be virtually impossible to condense thousands of pages of technical planning data into the 75 word ballot summaries that are required by law. Inevitably, disagreements – and lawsuits – would ensue. Amendment 4 encourages the special interests that lose at the ballot box to take their case to court, at taxpayer expense.
That is exactly what happened to the small town of St. Pete Beach, which implemented a local version of Amendment 4 in 2006. The measure has decimated their economy and created chaos at the polls. To date, the citizens of St. Pete Beach have seen nearly a dozen lawsuits that have cost local taxpayers more than three-quarters of a million dollars in legal fees. When St. Pete Beach voters approved four pro-economy changes to their comprehensive plan in 2008, Amendment 4 lawyers sued to overturn the results of the election. Nearly two years later, the people of St. Pete Beach are still defending their vote in court. Ward Friszolowski, the former Mayor of St. Pete Beach wrote “Our experiment in Amendment 4 has turned St. Pete Beach into a battleground for special interests.” The same “copy and paste” lawsuits that plague St. Pete Beach would soon spread to every Florida town.
Moreover, under Amendment 4, residents most impacted by local planning decisions will lose influence in a process that inherently favors deep-pocketed special interests. This measure would turn the growth management debate into a political spectacle. Neighborhoods would lose representation in the public planning process, as communities across town make decisions about schools, hospitals, jails, and landfills in your backyard.
Worse still, Amendment 4 will introduce new delays into the planning process. This measure is so extreme that it does not even contain exceptions for vital community projects like hospitals, schools, police stations or fire trucks. Consequently, even important and uncontroversial community projects will likely experience paralyzing delays.
As Florida attempts to recover from this devastating recession, the last thing we need is Amendment 4, a proposal that would empower special interest lawyers to raid taxpayer’s pockets in order to finance special interest lawsuits. This November, VOTE NO on Amendment 4!
ORIGINAL POST:
For all of you out there who may not be aware of the proposed Amendment to the Florida Constitution that will be brought to the ballot in November of this year, my recommendation is that you become knowledgeable about it so you can vote accordingly.
This effort, thinly disguised as “hometown democracy” reeks of Americana and apple pie, but is the proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.
Amendment 4 poses one of the greatest threats to Florida quality of life and economy. This “vote on everything” amendment would force thousands of changes to local government comprehensive plans each year at the ballot box.
Is this not un-American and contrary to the Pledge of Allegiance, wherein every American pledges allegiance to a republic. The very core of representative democracy is totally undermined by this ill-conceived effort being forced on the electorate under the guise of save our beaches and wetlands.
My blog does not permit me enough space to elaborate on – The Fight Against Amendment 4, however I have attached a PDF file that provides a question and answer, and a link for further information. According to well known “tree hugger” Commissioner Jon Saxton who is a leading opponent of Amendment 4, last year Sarasota County enacted 6 Amendments to our comprehensive plan. There were at least 25 public hearings to facilitate these actions which all passed. Can you imagine the expense and confusion if each of these Amendments were subjected to a public referendum. If you need any further convincing as to the futility of this proposal, contact any public official or tax payer in the City of St. Petersburg Beach who have been living under an Amendment 4 type of government for the past 4 years.
SRMagFeb2010Final100128114711 31
Please explain how amendment 4 is a threat to our quality of life?
I suggest you read the attachment to my blog.
What nonsense. All six Comprehensive Plan amendments could have been put on the same already scheduled ballot, at no significant additional cost or trouble. None were controversial so all would pass, as have all Comp Plan amendments that went to the ballot in St. Pete Beach. Big developers such as Ian Black’s clients and those who fund County Commissioners don’t want the people to have the final say over Plan amendments that may be bad (such as Sarasota 2050) but which they are able to grease through the Commission with their campaign contributions. Fine, but shame on them and their supporters for trying to defeat Amendment 4 with lies such as those which are being spread about special elections and St. Pete Beach. Stick to the facts, Ian. It reflects on you poorly when you do not.
Hi Dan:
Your comments go to the very core of the issue. Why is it necessary to burden the electorate with non-controversial referendum that run the risk of not being approved because of apathetic and uninformed voters. For your own edification, most of my clients are small business people struggling hard in today’s difficult climate to make ends meet. It would be helpful if you would stick to the facts and not broadcast your rhetoric as in your reply to me. If you do not trust your elected representatives, then throw the bums out and as a responsible citizen I am disappointed that you would seek to lobby against a democratic representative form of government. Any mud slinging in this campaign has been initiated and continued by the proponents of this Amendment, as your comment illustrates. The opponents factual opposition is well documented in numerous places and it serves no purpose for me to continue this discussion with you whilst you regretfully continue to sling mud. The facts speak for themselves.
[...] See the original post: Say No to Amendment 4 « Ian Black Real Estate's Blog [...]