Amendment 4: Approve or Oppose?

[trigger]

Do you want to know a dirty little secret?

It can be conservatively estimated the amount of land currently entitled in the City of Jacksonville future land use map (this does not include St. Johns, Nassau or Clay County) is enough to sustain a population of more than 4.5 million people today. The current population of the city is just over 810,000 people and the growth rate between 2006-2011 is estimated at 9.6%. That's enough residential density to sustain the City's current growth rate and average household size for the next 50 years with no additional comprehensive plan amendments. However, the future land use map is mandated by law to account for growth over the next 10 years. The city contains 5 times more than mandated by law. Some future land use maps in South Florida have enough for the next 100 years. There can be no better evidence the planning process in this State has been perverted beyond the pale. That is "over-building", my friends.

Actually, it's not that big of a secret. All you have to do is search the City's Comprehensive Plan and run the numbers based on current average household size (or just do a public records search for the specific analysis... doubt the City would volunteer it). If you run the numbers based on maximum build-out (using most dense zoning category for each residential land use) then the results would be even more perverse.

[Clem1029]

...his analogies to bourbon and water and his diatribe against the current collective (process, lobbyists, political ideology of the day, etc) do not offer a substansive or compelling argument to vote in favor of amendment 4.

This.

I've yet to hear one honest positive argument for supporting 4 outside of the "something needs to be done..." line of thought on the other thread. In fact, it keeps sounding like 4 is the worst possible thing for all sides:

If you're pro-status quo, 4 is bad as it probably makes it more difficult for future large development to occur.
If you're anti-sprawl, 4 is bad as it locks in the current sprawl plans and makes it more difficult to change those plans going forward.
If you're pro-infill development, 4 is bad as it will make it much harder to change current plans to support that kind of development (I can't imagine infill development would survive the immediate NIMBY-ism that 4 would basically codify).

And this might be stretching it a little (folks around here can easily correct me on this one), but 4 would be bad for any future transit plans, right? Any TOD that requires changes to the plan would be subject to vote. Heck, any changes to the plan to allow transit to be built would be subject to a vote too. I can't imagine that would be too successful.

Pro-4 people can't seem to articulate any concrete, real reason for support, and as such, I can't imagine why it would be supported. I'm officially in the "no on 4" camp now.

[thelakelander]

And this might be stretching it a little (folks around here can easily correct me on this one), but 4 would be bad for any future transit plans, right? Any TOD that requires changes to the plan would be subject to vote. Heck, any changes to the plan to allow transit to be built would be subject to a vote too. I can't imagine that would be too successful.

You're not stretching it.  You are correct.

[Actionville]

Supporters seem to be equating no zoning changes with no new development. As such, people will be inclined to automatically vote no on any changes, when the zoning laws are in dire need of change to stop this policy induced default pattern of low density Euclidean sprawl.

[fieldafm]

I used to work with Mark and have the highest regards for his abilities as a planner and entitlements professional.  That being said, his analogies to bourbon and water and his diatribe against the current collective (process, lobbyists, political ideology of the day, etc) do not offer a substansive or compelling argument to vote in favor of amendment 4.  I was a casualty of the recent development bubble but I will still be voting no.

100% agree.  I think everyone agrees on the problem that 4 stems from... but Ive yet to hear a logical argument on why 4 rectifies the problem.

[simms3]

Going back to it, just look at which major groups support 4 and which groups are against.  I very much naturally align myself with the groups against (except the AFL-CIO) and I have usually been opposed to any piece of legislation that the in favor groups support.  If I had no time to do my own research on the bill and I could not logically think about it, then judging by who is for it and who is against, there would be no doubt in my mind that I should vote against this bill.  This is one of the worst proposed amendments to come down the pike.

[finehoe]

look at which major groups support 4 and which groups are against.

Exactly.  And the groups agin' it are almost all the same groups that have supported runaway sprawl.  I need to study it more, but based on who's for it and who's against it, I must say I'd be leaning towards "yes".

[CS Foltz]

Driving around town, I have seen umpteen hundred signs that say "Vote No on Amendment 4"and they were mostly in front of business's and a few homes. For all of the supposed money sunk into the passage of 4, by the special interest groups, the treehuggers and the antibusiness groups, I have seen no signage that says vote "Yes on Amendment 4"! But I have been deluged with "NO" here, there and everywhere! I see elected officials being bought off by developers, when they are supposed to represent the voters who put them into office to represent the voters best interests. I see this theme running throughout government and to be honest,from my viewpoint, I have no problem voting each and everytime required........but that's just me. I plan on voting ........right or wrong and I plan on voting "Yes"!

[thelakelander]

How about the additional $80 million taxpayer funded annual cost to hold the extra referendums?  The way I see it, I rather that type of cash be spent on eduaction, parks and mass transit.

[CS Foltz]

lake......what price is freedom to make a choice? Like I said, right or wrong, yes is my choice and I have earned it in more ways than one! I look at the choices that the City has made and say WTF? If it passes, I look forward to making more choices down the road................it probably won't, but I am going to do my part lake!

[JeffreyS]

And in the matter of the comp plan alteration 36-b2 minimum set back waiver for plot 3625a and 3625b to be extended 36 inches with gutter heights lowered 2 inches and composite pavers instead of grade level concrete used.  Lawsuit filed by ambitious trial lawyer in county court 02/23/12. claim by random NIMBY group does not meet voter intent on comp plan change. ect ect ect.

This is my fear.

We are a representative republic not a democracy.
I know the representatives often sell themselves to the highest bidder but it is the best system on earth so far.

[buckethead]

Nicely stated, Jeffrey. That unintelligible paragraph put's prop 4 into perspective.

[CS Foltz]

One of these days, when everyone is connected, voter representation & feelings regarding a specific issue will be just a click away and no one would have to show up at a polling station to make their views known! Not anytime soon though..but one of these days! It would be kinda difficult for any representative to ignore their constituants then.....would it not?

[tufsu1]

It would be kinda difficult for any representative to ignore their constituants then.....would it not?

why would it be any different than it is now...do you think everyone would actually bother to vote?\

and btw...if we're talking about issues, voters should be required to listen to all sides before casting their vote....just like Councils do in listening to applicants, staff, and the general public.

[ChriswUfGator]

It would be kinda difficult for any representative to ignore their constituants then.....would it not?

why would it be any different than it is now...do you think everyone would actually bother to vote?\

and btw...if we're talking about issues, voters should be required to listen to all sides before casting their vote....just like Councils do in listening to applicants, staff, and the general public.

You and I have way more in common than I thought...