Amendment 4

[thelakelander]

Amendment 4 could actually help preserve sprawl.

[stjr]

Amendment 4 looks to be a tool to get the legislature to finally act on urban sprawl.  If it passes, it likely won't stay in its current form for long without modification (if the consequences are a fraction of what detractors claim), but upon such modification, we should end up with something both workable and better than what we have now - which is nothing. 

If Amendment 4 fails, what's to keep the status quo of unbridled growth from continuing?  The legislature will not address urban sprawl unless given a mandate to do so.  Amendment 4 could serve that purpose.  I actually think politicos secretly like these amendments because it can empower them to do things they otherwise would avoid like the plague.

It's unfortunate that citizen initiatives are required to make the legislature do its job.  I again cite the class size amendment used to get funding for education as an example.  It will now be tweaked but we will be better off with it than without.  Seems to me, as imperfect as Amendment 4 could be, it would serve the same purpose.

[tufsu1]

Amendment 4 looks to be a tool to get the legislature to finally act on urban sprawl.

correct...which is the one reason that I would consier supporting it...

but...do you trust the Legislature (the same ones who want to abolish DRIs and CA) to get it right?

[thelakelander]

Is there anyone AGAINST Amendment 4?  We would like to run a for and against guest editorial on the topic, later this month.  Let me, one of the site administrators or moderators know if you would be interesting in sharing your thoughts on the issue on the front page of MJ.

[CS Foltz]

Can not help you there lake! I believe that I will be voting "YES" on 4.....time to head the developers off at the pass! If they can convince me otherwise.......they can try!

[fieldafm]

Im voting against 4.  I would be interested.

[cityimrov]

Amendment 4 looks to be a tool to get the legislature to finally act on urban sprawl.  If it passes, it likely won't stay in its current form for long without modification (if the consequences are a fraction of what detractors claim), but upon such modification, we should end up with something both workable and better than what we have now - which is nothing.

If Amendment 4 fails, what's to keep the status quo of unbridled growth from continuing?  The legislature will not address urban sprawl unless given a mandate to do so.  Amendment 4 could serve that purpose.  I actually think politicos secretly like these amendments because it can empower them to do things they otherwise would avoid like the plague.

It's unfortunate that citizen initiatives are required to make the legislature do its job.  I again cite the class size amendment used to get funding for education as an example.  It will now be tweaked but we will be better off with it than without.  Seems to me, as imperfect as Amendment 4 could be, it would serve the same purpose.

If that is really what Amendment 4 is about, that's playing with fire at the gas station.  It's a highly risky maneuver.  At least with the class size amendment, they have time to figure out something that will work due to the gradual class scaling.  With Amendment 4, there is no time - its implemented as soon as it get's voted on!  Every second a new counter-amendment isn't created is everyday an uncertainty is created - either no development, mass development to a scale we haven't seen before, or random development where we have no clue what will happen (we might as well turn development to the lotto!)

Next is the voters.  The new class size amendment has no guarantee it will pass.  We could be stuck with the old amendment no matter what the cost.  The same could be true if Amendment 4 passes.   In addition to that, there has been a history of voters not wanting to give up power once they have it.   Especially to an elected representative.  It's going to be much tougher to turnover Amendment 4 once it passes and replace it with something better then it would be without it and vote on the better plan in the first place.

I see your point but this is a very risky a maneuver to get what you want.

[Dog Walker]

If we let a desire for the perfect stop us trying for the good and better, then we will get nowhere.  What we have now is not working.  Let's try something else even if it isn't perfect.

[Jason]

Urban sprawl isn't the problem...  its SUBurban sprawl that we need to stop.

[CS Foltz]

Dog Walker...........I tend to agree with you! Obvious what we have now is not doing the job, concurrency is not evenly applied and more often or not, not in the effected area so I am thinking time for something to take place! Let the voters have their say and lets move on! Developers will just love it right?

[cityimrov]

Dog Walker...........I tend to agree with you! Obvious what we have now is not doing the job, concurrency is not evenly applied and more often or not, not in the effected area so I am thinking time for something to take place! Let the voters have their say and lets move on! Developers will just love it right?

Actually, for rural developers, they might just love it - especially if cool commercials showing the neat amenities there are shown.  If Nocatee was put to the vote, it would be approved by a huge margin.  The houses in Nocatee aren't being bought up by magical beings, they are being bought by the "Average American Family" with 2.5 kids who want their kids to go to a brand new school near their house with new teachers and who also represents a gigantic voting block. 

[Brand New]

It's also important to look at the effect of Amendment 4 on the actual planning process. By voting yes, you are effectively turning the urban planner from a civil servant into a politician. The successful comprehensive plan won't be the one that best solves issues of housing/economic development/transportation, but the one that is most likely to be voted for by the public. What's to stop developers from influencing these plans? If our local government really is corrupt, Amendment 4 won't do anything to change that.

Also, do we really want to allocate taxpayer's money to funding 25+ referenda a year, not to mention the costs of trying to educate the public about each and every land-use amendment?

This website is full of relatively like-minded individuals with a healthy interest in the community, but we are a small minority in the community. When faced with the choice of converting designated farmland into potential suburban development, the average citizen is much more likely to think about the that jobs will be created by the project than the environmental/sociological impact of sprawl, especially in the wake of the current unemployment rate.

[stjr]

The successful comprehensive plan won't be the one that best solves issues of housing/economic development/transportation, but the one that is most likely to be voted for by the public. What's to stop developers from influencing these plans?

Problem is the current "successful comprehensive plans" already don't solve the issues of "housing/economic development/transportation".... and, they are already influenced by developers.  That's why Amendment 4 is on the ballot.

The best way to respond to Amendment 4 is to come up with a another viable and effective alternative to the status quo.  Simply telling people that Amendment 4 is imperfect isn't all that persuasive given the many imperfections of the current system.  It currently comes down to do you want to err on the side of over-development or underdevelopment.  Since the over-development is irreversible, it would seem many will want to err on the always reversible underdevelopment that may result from Amendment 4 passing.

[Starbuck]

While I have every confidence that the majority of voters who placed the pregnant pig amendment into the Constitution of the State of Florida would be able to excercise a similar level of good judgement in the examination of hundreds of pages of documentation of a land use change, such effort might not be necessary after all. (don't know where the number 25 came from.. more than 150 last year and it was a slow year)

Comprehensive planning process was an imperfectly crafted compromise between the development community and environmentalist and community interests. If Amendment 4 passes, look for legislation to be re-introduced (there was already a bill last year) that would terminate comprehensive planning in Florida entirely and dissolve the Department of Community Affairs.

Problem solved.

[Brand New]

Problem is the current "successful comprehensive plans" already don't solve the issues of "housing/economic development/transportation".... and, they are already influenced by developers.  That's why Amendment 4 is on the ballot.

The best way to respond to Amendment 4 is to come up with a another viable and effective alternative to the status quo.  Simply telling people that Amendment 4 is imperfect isn't all that persuasive given the many imperfections of the current system.  It currently comes down to do you want to err on the side of over-development or underdevelopment.  Since the over-development is irreversible, it would seem many will want to err on the always reversible underdevelopment that may result from Amendment 4 passing.

I agree, but there isn't exactly time to put a better alternative on the ballot. I don't understand the argument that Amendment 4 should be passed simply to force us to come up with a better alternative later. If this radical of an amendment could make it onto the ballot, isn't it even more likely that a more practical solution will be able to? It's not like after this year suddenly we will forget that the current system is imperfect. I think more people would risk over-development in favor of lower government costs and unemployment. The taxpayers money should be going to schools, not useless elections meant to frustrate the government and slow the economy.

Perhaps the real solution is to fight the corruption itself? Think about how many people have been exposed to aspects of planning and urban development from this website that never had been before. Imagine if there existed a way to see what decisions are being made, why, and by whom in our local government. This kind of transparency would force politicians to express their positions on issues that actually matter and remove all the fluff. Citizens could see how the government acted on issues of smart growth, and could more effectively root out corruption. Certainly this would take less time, money, and effort than putting every decision to a vote.