Amendment 4

[tufsu1]

If people cared that much about stopping sprawl, why were there no public speakers opposing the comp. plan amendments in Jax. earlier this year that changed the FLUm on over 3000 rural acres?

Could it be because they were "in the middle of nowhere" so nobody noticed or cared?

[cline]

What makes you think Amendment 4 will be the end to sprawl.  What if there is a large contingent of voters that would vote in favor of the next Nocateek, Fleming Island etc?

Then at least the process would in the open, not done by back room deals by people with special access to the green room behind the City Council chambers.

Well at least then we could be proud of our sprawl, right?  Since it was created on the up and up.

I think you may be overestimating floridians' appetite for continued destructive development patterns.

Judging by what has occurred in the past decade, their appetite seems voracious.  It seems that many, once placed within gated communities easily forget that destruction .

[cityimrov]

Gated communities are getting rather popular lately with the average person.  It supposedly provides a safer community with the protection of the guard and gate.  Think of the children! 

What are the chances that any formal planning commission will be shut down in the future with the passage of Amendment 4? 

[CS Foltz]

I have seen plenty of signs around my world........"Say No to Amendment 4"! People that I have talked to around my neighborhood are saying "Yes" to 4! So I guess we are going to find out real soon!!

[simms3]

From an RS&H employee/former FDOT (so you might say they're biased):

The big challenge with Amendment 4 is that ANY developer (whether it is infill changing the overlay to include higher density) or PUD, or if a corner is planned for a gas station and someone wants to change it to allow a daycare center, there will be 1 or 2 votes a year for each county.  In these votes, citizens will have a say (which is theoretically good), but in the meantime a developer or landowner has been holding onto land/plans for a full year before there is a vote on the change that will affect the property.

Developers take an added risk to own any land because virtually every development requires some sort of variance or landplan change and they will be able to do nothing for at least a year and will have to spend additional moneys to try to get their development to move forward.

This will probably curb sprawl growth, but inadvertently will hinder any kind of development in the entire state and will most likely affect our desired infill growth as well.

To add to this, voting is expensive, very very expensive.  There is even a ballot initiative this year to increase mayoral and other terms by 6 months to guarantee a fall vote for all city positions to cut back on "voting".

Bottom line, as we all know by now there is no simple answer.  I would rather allow current procedures and trends rather than vote for Amendment 4.  I think we can do like Kissimmee and impose much higher impact fees on developers.  (In case you're wondering, Osceola County has the highest impact fees in the state and it actually hasn't slowed growth, but they are better able to pay for necessary infrastructure improvements with the fees)

If Duval County imposes much higher fees, all developers might simply go to St. Johns and Clay and Nassau, so it must be a quad county program.

[buckethead]

Developers should not be allowed access to subsidies via infrastructure improvements paid for by existing revenues.

Voters should not be placed in quazi-control of privately owned properties.

I would agree that fees are the way. The big problem is in the financial connections between developers and local/state politicians.

I'm sure there is a better way to break the unholy alliance, but I don't know what it is.

[fieldafm]

If people cared that much about stopping sprawl, why were there no public speakers opposing the comp. plan amendments in Jax. earlier this year that changed the FLUm on over 3000 rural acres?

Could it be because they were "in the middle of nowhere" so nobody noticed or cared?

Exactly!  In virtually every poll, the majority of Jacksonville indicates we are squarely in a 'pro-growth' city.

The current growth plan we have in place now was by and large disregarded since its inception b/c no one really has actively enforced it.  The growth in Baymeadows and along Beach Blvd were a direct result of not enforcing the comprehensive plan.  And that's going back to the late 70's. 

[ChriswUfGator]

Florida Tax Watch has looked at the financial impact to taxpayers for Amendment 4

http://www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/10052010FiscalImpactAmendment4.pdf

I read through that link. The analysis is flawed, because it analyzed the issue in a vacuum, which results in a meaningless conclusion. The paper doesn't even mention the cost of sprawl as compared to the proposed cost if enacting amendment 4. If you factored in the cost of taxpayers paying for all the additional infrastructure these developers get for free (the impact fees don't come hopelessly close to covering even a fraction of it), then this amendment will undoubtedly actually save the taxpayers money. But taxwatch, an organization that is noxiously pro-business, naturally makes no mention of this fact, which would blow up its predetermined conclusion.

[tufsu1]

ok Chris...since you beleive that analysis is flawed....

try St. Pete Beach (a pretty small place)....they've been embroiled in lawsuits for 28 months (with a cost of close to $1 million to taxpayers) related to their own version of Hometown Democracty....and their redevelopment plans and projects have all been held up because of the lawsuits.

[ChriswUfGator]

ok Chris...since you beleive that analysis is flawed....

try St. Pete Beach (a pretty small place)....they've been embroiled in 28 lawsuits (with a cost of close to $1 million to taxpayers) since 2006 related to their own version of Hometown Democracty....and their redevelopment plans and projects have all been held up because of the lawsuits.

That's a terrible misconception.

The st Pete lawsuits had nothing to do with the amendment, they all stem back to a couple developers who (after st Pete locally passed a mini-version of amendment 4) turned around and lied on the ballot summary sheets by submitting false data and omitting project data, like height, density, and environmental impact, in order to defraud st Pete voters into approving high-density projects via referendum that wouldn't have been approved if they hadn't lied to the voters.

The lawsuits are actually the taxpayers suing their own city government to revoke the approvals, once they found out they'd been lied to and realized the true scale of the projects. How in hell can these same greedy developers who caused the problem in the first place by lying and omitting required data from ballot summaries now turn around and point to the fact that their malfeasance resulted in a lawsuit as somehow proving amendment 4 is bad?

Totally disingenuous, and business as usual for these kind of developers.

http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2010/09/13/story7.html?b=1284350400%5E3923091

[simms3]

Chris, I noticed you used the terminology "notoriously pro-business".  Enough said on that.  Also, congrats on passing the Bar, I know you are an attorney, could you possibly have a bias here on this amendment because it may open the door to lawsuits?  Also, you mentioned that in St. Pete the projects under scrutiny are high density.  Doesn't sound like sprawl developments are under scrutiny there.  I thought your whole issue for voting for amendment 4 was because it was going to stop sprawl (supposedly).  Sounds like it is stopping all development.

I'm not an advocate of lying, but if I was a landowner/developer in St. Pete and I originally wanted to put in some 20 floor condos knowing that I would have to apply for the land use to be changed or setbacks to be changed for my desired architectural scheme and then the mini amendment 4 passed, I would be tempted to lie so that I wouldn't have to wait a year, doing nothing, for the citizenry to hold a "vote" on my specific piece of property and others.  (all for a minor setback change or buffer zone change, or something minor).

[tufsu1]

The lawsuits are actually the taxpayers suing their own city government to revoke the approvals, once they found out they'd been lied to and realized the true scale of the projects.

really?  Perhaps it was a small minority...especially considering that the citizens of St. Pete Beach repealed their version of Hometown Democracy three years later....and now the pro-HD folks are suing.

Check this out below....fresh off the presses

RESOLUTION 2010-27

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ST. PETE BEACH, FLORIDA, OPPOSING AMENDMENT 4, AN AMENDMENT  TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD FORCE VOTERS TO DECIDE ALL CHANGES TO A CITY OR COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

Whereas, in November 2006 the electors of St. Pete Beach approved their own local version of Amendment 4 a/k/a Hometown Democracy requiring voter referendum approval on all comprehensive plan amendment affecting 5 or more parcels of land; and

Whereas, since November 2006, the electors of St. Pete Beach held referendum elections on 11 comprehensive plan amendments, including 2 elections that would not have otherwise been locally required and including 5 state mandated technical amendments; and

Whereas, in November 2009 the electors of St. Pete Beach voted to substantially modify and repeal many of the voting requirements of their local version of Amendment 4 after experiencing first-hand the burdensome and costly nature of these additional voting referendum to the citizens, taxpayers and local government; and

Whereas, as a result of the requirement that citizens vote on all comprehensive plan amendments, plan amendments exceeding 115 pages in length were subject to a maximum 15 word title and a 75 word ballot summary imposed by law; and

Whereas, subsequent to the June 2008 voter referendum on a Community Redevelopment District comprehensive plan amendment wherein more than 57% of the electorate approved the measure, a single taxpayer sued the City of St. Pete Beach to overturn the majority vote of the people claiming, amongst other things, that the title and 75 word ballot summary was "deceptive and misleading" because it did not contain a description of the issues he believed were the most important issues to the voters of St. Pete Beach; and

Whereas, the City of St. Pete Beach has been ensnared in litigation for over 28 months in nearly a dozen lawsuits stemming from the June referendum on this comprehensive plan amendment in both administrative and judicial forums, defending the vote of the St. Pete Beach electors on this issue and as a result, incurring approximately $750,000 in litigation costs and suffering irreparable economic damage to: 1) the City's operating budget and reserves; 2) the designated Community Redevelopment District, the core business area and economic engine of the City, by forcing all redevelopment efforts to be placed on hold until the litigation is fully resolved; and 3) the community at large including the residential neighborhoods impacted by the stagnated efforts to redevelop, beautify, replace and construct badly needed infrastructure; and

Whereas, Amendment 4 seeks to amend Article II, Section 7, of the Florida Constitution (Title: Referenda Required for Adoption of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans) will be voted on by the citizens of Florida this November 2, 2010; and

Whereas, Amendment 4 proposes even broader voting referendum requirements than the citizens of St. Pete Beach originally adopted in its version of Amendment 4 in November 2006; and

Whereas, Amendment 4 will require voter referendums on all comprehensive plan amendments defined to include all plans that "guide and control future land development in an area under the jurisdiction of a local government;" and

Whereas, the substantial majority of the electorate of St. Pete Beach has already rejected the broad voting referendum requirements proposed by Amendment 4 in November 2009; and

Whereas, the challenges presented by growth and redevelopment require communities embrace smart growth policies aimed at protecting the short and long term quality of life of Floridians that engender economic prosperity and the building of connected communities; and

Whereas, Amendment 4 poses a grave threat to Florida's unique quality of life, the stability of its communities, the prosperity of its economy and will fragment communities rather than bring communities together; and

Whereas, Amendment 4 will further disenfranchise millions of Florida's already fatigued electorate, paralyze local government and unduly burden taxpayers, create unprecedented uncertainty and needless litigation, and cripple the local and State economy.

NOW, THEREFORE the City Commission of the City of St. Pete Beach, Pinellas County, Florida DOES RESOLVE:

Section 1.  Having dedicated its own policies to advancing smart growth, recommends defeat of Amendment 4.

Section 2. Having incurred the time and expense of nearly 2-1/2 years of litigation over comprehensive plan amendment litigation and experienced the undue burden on its tax payers and City government, recommends defeat of Amendment 4.

Section 3. Having placed a substantial modification and repeal of its own version of Amendment 4 before its voters and its electorate having overwhelmingly rejected the broad scope and burden imposed on the electorate by Amendment 4, recommends defeat of Amendment 4.

Section 4. Urges citizens of St. Pete Beach and across Florida to vote "No" on Amendment 4 in the November 2010 election.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the City Commission of St. Pete Beach, Pinellas County, Florida on this 12th day of October 2010.

[north miami]

Follow the Money........

[ChriswUfGator]

Well tufsu, yes it does appear based on your article that the residents of st Pete beach have had quite the change if heart then, haven't they? I hadn't read that they had voted to repeal HD. But still, all the problems with their local version of it started with public outrage over projects gaining voter approval which then turned out far different than what people thought they were approving. If developers had been honest in their ballot summaries, and honest about disclosing the density levels of their projects, it would have worked. But I'll concede it does appear to be kind if a mess over there. Clearly we are going to need to develop some process for ensuring that developers are honest in representing what exactly they want to build when gaining voter approval.

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris, I noticed you used the terminology "notoriously pro-business".  Enough said on that.  Also, congrats on passing the Bar, I know you are an attorney, could you possibly have a bias here on this amendment because it may open the door to lawsuits?  Also, you mentioned that in St. Pete the projects under scrutiny are high density.  Doesn't sound like sprawl developments are under scrutiny there.  I thought your whole issue for voting for amendment 4 was because it was going to stop sprawl (supposedly).  Sounds like it is stopping all development.

I'm not an advocate of lying, but if I was a landowner/developer in St. Pete and I originally wanted to put in some 20 floor condos knowing that I would have to apply for the land use to be changed or setbacks to be changed for my desired architectural scheme and then the mini amendment 4 passed, I would be tempted to lie so that I wouldn't have to wait a year, doing nothing, for the citizenry to hold a "vote" on my specific piece of property and others.  (all for a minor setback change or buffer zone change, or something minor).

I'm not acting out of bias, and certainly hope we can find a way to do this without causing a flood of litigation. The reason I support this is because I really think the comprehensive land use planning process has been so co-opted by developers that it is a nightmare in it's current form. The voters are unable to control what is built in their own back yard, as local politicians once elected immediately suckle up to developers to feather their nests. There has to be some kind of check and balance.

Let's say I wanted to quietly pick up some houses in ortega, knock them down, and put up a giant condo tower? You guys would go ballistic! But in many areas, particularly oceanfront ones, this is exactly what happens. The developer quietly buys up some land and the next thing anyone knows there is some giant development going in that nobody wants. The units get sold to people from other areas, and the development strains the local infrastructure, which the taxpayers are then stuck upgrading as the impact fees don't come close to covering a fraction of the actual costs.

Developers make back room deals with politicians to get the comp plans changed and pud's approved, often over the objection of the actual community residents. This is wrong, and it should stop. Another separate problem is sprawl-based development patterns, of which Nocatee is a perfect example. This simple can't continue the way it has been, too many people are hacked off over it.