Amendment 4: Approve or Oppose?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/906337462_NUDGp-M.jpg)
A special look into the details of Florida's Amendment 4 and guest editorials for and against this highly controversial amendment in our upcoming elections.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-oct-amendment-4-approve-or-oppose
Vote NO! The system doesn't work as well as it should but this is not the answer. There are other methods for reining in bad growth. This amendment puts huge restrictions on ANY growth. We as voters don't have a great track record of even turning up to vote, much less reading up on issues and candidates the way we should. Is it really a good idea to take complex plans and condense them to 75 words and have someone reading them for the first time make a spur of the moment decision that could affect schools and roads and hospitals for all of us?
Based solely on discussions on this site... I will be voting no.
also voting no, and great article breaking down this nonsense.
I like to buck the trend... I gotta go yes.
Now those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrades?
we've already got one failed (miserably failed) attempt at this legislation. Much like our congress, Florida seems to think they can do it better than the other guy simply by force of will. Idiots. VOTE NO!!!!
Some interesting points from the St. Pete Times editorial board
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1130872.ece
Definitely vote no...a no brainer. Anything otherwise is a vote for insanity.
Also, just look at who is "for" the amendment (big surprise there, and why don't you add every major litigation and law firm in S FL). The groups opposed are all good groups ranging from architects to surpisingly the AFL-CIO (I guess they know it will be a job killer) to Realtors to the Chambers of Commerce to the American Planning Association.
You know it astounds me that no one realizes that developers are still throwing up condos and homes left and right and yet people down the street cant give there homes away. This may not be a perfect solution but I don't see the the home builders association coming up with answer anytime soon, oh wait I meant our legislature, oh wait that's right some of them are on in the same. nice.
Quote from: jaxlore on October 29, 2010, 09:28:40 AM
You know it astounds me that no one realizes that developers are still throwing up condos and homes left and right and yet people down the street cant give there homes away. This may not be a perfect solution but I don't see the the home builders association coming up with answer anytime soon, oh wait I meant our legislature, oh wait that's right some of them are on in the same. nice.
This amendment won't stop all that. There are thousands upon thousands of already entitled dwelling units just waiting to be built.
Quote from: jaxlore on October 29, 2010, 09:28:40 AM
You know it astounds me that no one realizes that developers are still throwing up condos and homes left and right
really...where?
I agree with what cline has said above, but I haven't exactly seen tons of home construction the past few years.
Read the below articles, please. If you still want to vote against Amendment 4, then go for it. As for me, I'll be voting YES ON AMENDMENT 4. Fear you might be doing the wrong thing is no excuse for lacking the courage to do anything.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/09/floridas-amendment-4-would-give-voters-say-on-overbuilding/63727/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/politics/28florida.html?_r=1
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/07/news/companies/lennar.taxes.fortune/index.htm
I think Amendment 4's heart is in the right place. I have been very against it because of similar measures past failures.
I do want to somehow convince our elected officials that the rivertowns of the world are a bad long term plan. I would like to preserve most of Florida's still pristine lands. I don't know, our politicians seem to sell out to the developers every time. Developers do not like infill easier to put some dirt in the wetlands. In the end I will most likely vote no because most of the people I encounter outside of this forum have not given two minutes time in their lives to consider what is good and bad development.
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.
The land speculators and developers are just trying to confuse you into voting NO
Because residential and most commercial growth doesnt pay for itself, it costs taxpayers for the infrastructure for municipal services like roads, schools, safety services, trash pickup, libraries, etc. The costs of these services come from us, taxpayers in existing areas.
What it means for metro Jax residents is cutbacks in service, overcrowded schools and roads for years and years as reinvestment in these areas is diverted to support new neighborhoods.
Growth will be unaffected as developers focus on land already designated under our land use plan for the development they need. Land use changes are NOT NEEDED for growth and development. So the number of land use changes to vote on would decrease and be at a manageable level because propositions that sound so good in discussions between developers and elected officials behind closed doors may not fly with taxpayer-voters.
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.
Quote from: fonz on October 29, 2010, 10:20:14 AM
...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.
Quote from: Clem1029 on October 29, 2010, 10:44:43 AM
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.
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.
QuoteI 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.
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.
Quote from: simms3 on October 29, 2010, 01:47:05 PM
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".
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"!
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.
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!
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.
Nicely stated, Jeffrey. That unintelligible paragraph put's prop 4 into perspective.
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?
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 30, 2010, 12:21:07 PM
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.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 30, 2010, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 30, 2010, 12:21:07 PM
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...
Everybody thinks of surburban spral. But this would also mean that the voters would also have to vote on changing industrial zoning to residential multi family if you wanted to take an old manufacturing plant and turn it into lofts. The suburbs, ie majority of the county, might all vote no to that change. The current planning board and zoning panel would likely jump at the chance. It affects downtown also.
Yes, a land use change would be required for the old Ford plant or the majority of buildings in the Springfield warehouse district to be anything other than industrial.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 30, 2010, 07:40:08 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 30, 2010, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 30, 2010, 12:21:07 PM
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...
maybe I convince you to vote the
right way too!
here's another good article...not the paragraph highlighted below
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/economicdevelopment/article1131009.ece
QuoteHowever, the state Supreme Court and the Florida Association of Counties have concluded those votes would also encompass comprehensive-plan elements as arcane as infrastructure improvements, including placement of sewer and drainage lines. The state says about 8,000 comprehensive plan amendments are approved by local governments each year in Florida.
Does no one realize that every PUD application and zoning variance would have to be voted on by the general public? Permitting and construction will grind to a halt even worse than it is now.
With all of this information and everything we know is there anyone still on board to vote for this boondoggle?
Yes .....simms3! As I have indicated right or wrong..........I am for Amendment 4! I see just what has taken place with our elected officials to this date and say WTH! People seem to have forgotten about Amendment 2 that was voter approved several years ago......this is something that Marco Rubio pushed through when he was speaker of the house and the folks south of here thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread! I see just where we are now because of that and it has come down to Amendment 4 this time out! I do not think it will pass since big & little business seem to think it is wrong, but need to point out, if by chance it does pass (I do not think that it will!) no matter what......everyone has the chance to make their views known! This is the quintessential American way!
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 30, 2010, 02:09:35 PM
...do you think everyone would actually bother to vote?
People with an interest in the issue will vote, and those that don't care, won't. Some issues will generate a lot of interest and some will not. Don't really see a problem.
Quote from: finehoe on November 01, 2010, 11:23:57 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 30, 2010, 02:09:35 PM
...do you think everyone would actually bother to vote?
People with an interest in the issue will vote, and those that don't care, won't. Some issues will generate a lot of interest and some will not. Don't really see a problem.
I see that as a potentialy huge problem...
Think about the Mayport cruise terminal issue....what if only those that were opposed (mainly local Mayport folks) voted?
Elected officials are charged with balancing the desires of their constituents with those of the larger community.
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 01, 2010, 11:54:04 AM
I see that as a potentialy huge problem...
Think about the Mayport cruise terminal issue....what if only those that were opposed (mainly local Mayport folks) voted?
Elected officials are charged with balancing the desires of their constituents with those of the larger community.
And what if the elected officials only voted according to what their campaign contrtibutors thought was best?
Oh, wait...that's what happens now.
There were about 180 items last year that would have qualified. What if we did want to make lofts in the Springfield warehouse district? Faced with 180 choices, wouldn't the average voter "just say no" in order not to "make a mistake" rather than read 180 different choices and make an informed decision on them?
Right now, we could turn out 100 vocal dissenters at the drop of a hat to storm the city council if a proposed development wasn't something we thought was compatible with our neighborhoods. But what if everyone in Duval County was voting on this? Do you think the folks in Queens Harbor, or the Westside, would care as much about the quality of life in your neck of the woods as you do?
Remember the vote to Consolidate back in the late 1960's? If it had been allowed to be up to the majority of Duval County voters alone, the Beaches communities would have been annexed instead of the voters who live there deciding their own fate.
Flawed the system may be, but I don't want the rest of the county deciding what to put in my neighborhood. It's easier to present opposition to the City Council than to try and get the word out to influence the entire City.
Yea I think Amendment 4 has potentially more devastating impacts than what has already happened in the much smaller jurisdiction of St. Pete Beach. Because Jacksonville encompasses what would normally be at least 20 smaller municipalities, Amendment 4 would be a one size fits all for residents of Duval County (Basically 1 municipality besides the 3 beaches and Baldwin). Good point Debbie!
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on November 01, 2010, 12:52:49 PM
Flawed the system may be, but I don't want the rest of the county deciding what to put in my neighborhood. It's easier to present opposition to the City Council than to try and get the word out to influence the entire City.
Then what is your option if the City Council will not acknowledge your view and decides to advance the developers view? This happened in my world, DR Horton convinced the City Council that their project of 2,400 Townhomes and Condos was a really good idea! It took the Mayor vetoing to put that project on hold. The City Council did not take into consideration the 2,800 people who all ready lived here! There was vocal and strong organized opposition to this taking place. What option is there when your City Council representative states point blank "This is not a good idea" and the Council looks at tax revenue and says "OK"? Do you just roll over and say..........thanks big guy... I look forward to getting shafted! Amendment 4 gives all of us the option to say "No Freaking Way Jose"! This is how I look at the situation!
CS...believe me...if the 2,800 people who lived there already had spoken up, Council would have listened.
Also, when it comes to land use, the Jax. City Council usually aligns with the local representative's view
During that situation, our Council Representative, at the time was Art Graham, he said point blank "Not good for the City or the area"! There were 3 bus loads of people who showed up,Better Bay Meadows Community Council arranged for the bus's. There were over 600 people who showed up in Council Chambers, I was one of them and had my 3 minutes of fame, even wore a suit just for the event.............Council still voted to pass DR Horton's Project! A petetion with over 2300 signitures was presented on behalf of the area and the Council still voted to approve! If Johnny had not seen fit to veto, Bay Meadows would be even more screwed up than it is now............thanks ITS System..............that is another thread though. Council dropped the ball plain and simple! This situation has convinced me that Amendment 4 is needed and I am voting Yes no matter who says what......saw it first hand, was there and it won't happen in my world again!
well that is unfortunate and somewhat surprisng....usually 600 people and 2300 signatures sway the vote.
I agree tufsu! I was somewhat dismayed to put it mildly! But at least John Boy did the right thing.......that might have been due to the 2500+ E Mails he got, but either way he did the right thing for a change!
Quote from: CS Foltz on November 02, 2010, 07:18:07 AM
During that situation, our Council Representative, at the time was Art Graham, he said point blank "Not good for the City or the area"! There were 3 bus loads of people who showed up,Better Bay Meadows Community Council arranged for the bus's. There were over 600 people who showed up in Council Chambers, I was one of them and had my 3 minutes of fame, even wore a suit just for the event.............Council still voted to pass DR Horton's Project! A petetion with over 2300 signitures was presented on behalf of the area and the Council still voted to approve! If Johnny had not seen fit to veto, Bay Meadows would be even more screwed up than it is now............thanks ITS System..............that is another thread though. Council dropped the ball plain and simple! This situation has convinced me that Amendment 4 is needed and I am voting Yes no matter who says what......saw it first hand, was there and it won't happen in my world again!
But if it passes, then what do you do when your DR Horton Project in Baymeadows is lumped in with something really trendy on the westside? Will your 2800 opposers to DR Horton be able to outvote 10k people on Blanding Blvd? Because if it really is 'one munincipality', then who is really looking at all the issues at hand that don't affect them?
Non-RedNeck Westsider......should be a seperate issue! This is my take on Amendent 4 though and we do have the Council supposedly looking at the best interests for all concerned! Either way 4 to me, is better than what we have now and if the voters elect to change that also, have no problem with it! Voters should be involved one way or the other no matter what so the wheel will show just what we, the voters, want............can't ask for more than that I don't think!
Honestly, I don't know the in's & out's of the bill. I haven't had the energy to do the research required. But I had those questions based on following the thread. IMO, I don't see how it can be a good thing for me to have a say in your issues, geog. speaking, nor do I think you should care whether another bar-b-q place goes up near my house. So if it is written as I understand it, that would be the case.
All in all, I don't think it will matter one way or the other unless they can break it apart into districts, as we have now. Because big money will find a way to get the vote pushed to their side one way or another.
I concur! To me what will identify any issue being pushed by a developer or monied special interests will be the TV add's proclaiming ............vote Yes on this..............thats going to be my first heads up of who what when and how! From there, will just be a question of some looking into the issue! I have no problem with that and look forward to the involvement! But thats just me!
for all of our sakes, if it passes let's hope that most people take the same stance as you.
so far, it has failed miserably.....65% voting NO
If it's one thing most Floridians don't like, it's paying higher taxes. Amendment 4 would have done just that.
Every since the MJ forum Oct 24 +/- CS Folz comment that Nocatee was formerly nothing but trees I have refrained from even viewing mostly mindless MJ meandering on the subject.
Nocatee a great metaphor- the development community ( and the Public!!!) responded to 4 as if a giant statewide comp plan change.
Have not seen the first Hometown pro sign but the Thumbs Down NO! of course everywhere,popping up like rezone sign at often telling locations.My favorite so far the cement plant alongside I-95 in south Florida-including the cement trucks.And earlier a key mitigation parcel alongside I-95 in St.Johns County.
Although a 'win" for No! there is a substantial army of "Yes" votes and renewed curiosity, post election research and the emerging inevitable things about ....."Growth".
ONWARD!!
Sure the Vote NO on 4 side had much more money...but money doesn't always win...heck Rick Scott spent tons of $ in a highly Republican year and still only won by 1%
On the other hand, only one county in Florida (Monroe) even had a majority of voters in favor of the amendment....and there it was only 50.5 to 49.5.
All you who suck at the tit of the development industry, shut your darn mouth. You won, the status quo in Florida is still intact. Give up your lectures and smarmy justifications and have the grace to be quiet.
Quote from: Jumpinjack on November 04, 2010, 07:31:21 AM
All you who suck at the tit of the development industry, shut your darn mouth. You won, the status quo in Florida is still intact. Give up your lectures and smarmy justifications and have the grace to be quiet.
huh?
We are all at the mercy of developers and the wealthy. As far as i'm concerned there should be a law that prevents homeowners from putting HUD housing in neighborhoods that don't want them. I have seen this nice quiet neighborhood turn to trash in just a few years...i'm sick of this HUD maddness....do we as home "owners" have any recourse?...i'm sick of the violence, drugs and just plain nastyness. This on top of the developers that are allowed to do what they will are what is dragging our home places into maddness.
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 03, 2010, 10:15:11 PM
Sure the Vote NO on 4 side had much more money...but money doesn't always win...heck Rick Scott spent tons of $ in a highly Republican year and still only won by 1%
On the other hand, only one county in Florida (Monroe) even had a majority of voters in favor of the amendment....and there it was only 50.5 to 49.5.
It is a good answer that knows when to stop.
NO! proponents had the answer to everthing and the solution to nothing.
What do you mean it's not the money? Please...we just elected a crook governor because he outspent on advertising.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 04, 2010, 10:56:31 AM
What do you mean it's not the money? Please...we just elected a crook governor because he outspent on advertising.
well let's see....Scott outspent Sink 5-1....and even with Rs winning across the board in FL (in a state that hasn't elected a D governor in 16+ years), he barely beat her.
and oh yeah, Meg Whitman and Carly Firoina got beat in CA even though they way outspent their opponents.
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 04, 2010, 11:41:40 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 04, 2010, 10:56:31 AM
What do you mean it's not the money? Please...we just elected a crook governor because he outspent on advertising.
well let's see....Scott outspent Sink 5-1....and even with Rs winning across the board in FL (in a state that hasn't elected a D governor in 16+ years), he barely beat her.
and oh yeah, Meg Whitman and Carly Firoina got beat in CA even though they way outspent their opponents.
So then you're saying without that advertising spending he still would have beat Sink?
That's the contrapositive to your argument that's logically required to be valid in order for your argument to be true, so let's address it...
Gee..........good thing he used his money right? Either way, produce or get out! I look forward to just how 700K jobs are going to be generated in this economy!
I would submit to you that his spending helped him beat McCollum in the primary....but if he had spent just as much $ as Sink in the general election, yes I think he would have still won.
in fact, nationally Democrats raised and spent more than Republicans (not inluding the 527 $) and still got trounced.
actually Stephen the data on fundraising is clear....feel free to look it up.
and while this may sound like a cop out, since the 527s "can't endorse a candidate or party", you can't associate their money with a given party.
Unless that money has been accounted for via filing, who knows where it came from? Supreme Court ruled that Corperations can finanace anyone with any amount! There are no limits and Corperations with deep pockets can do pretty much what they will..............unlike the tax paying public! For all any one knows, Mr Scotts former Company, HCA, actually gave him that money................or does anyone know for sure?
Follow the money for sure.
Hometown leaders will be providing insight on the details.Stay tuned.
Although # 4 has come and gone,the systemic issues remain and there is elevated interest.
Quote from: north miami on November 06, 2010, 02:04:52 PM
Follow the money for sure.
Hometown leaders will be providing insight on the details.Stay tuned.
Although # 4 has come and gone,the systemic issues remain and there is elevated interest.
north miami..........you said it! Amendment 4 was shot down, but the systemic problems do remain.....elected officials that do not represent their constituants but pander to those special interests just for the campaign contributions! Something is wrong here and right now, I don't see anyway to correct other than removing elected officials that do not do their elected jobs!
Quote from: CS Foltz on November 06, 2010, 02:32:40 PM
Quote from: north miami on November 06, 2010, 02:04:52 PM
Follow the money for sure.
Hometown leaders will be providing insight on the details.Stay tuned.
Although # 4 has come and gone,the systemic issues remain and there is elevated interest.
north miami..........you said it! Amendment 4 was shot down, but the systemic problems do remain.....elected officials that do not represent their constituants but pander to those special interests just for the campaign contributions! Something is wrong here and right now, I don't see anyway to correct other than removing elected officials that do not do their elected jobs!
If not by now,then when??
The definitive response and grasp by the development industry to # 4 was simply a reflection of that influence on a local government joined at the hip with ardent development.Rearranging the faces on an elected local review commission to no avail.
The leaders of the Hometown #4 proposal command great experience and are aware of a statewide historical narrative.The Hometown concept was arrived at through a deliberative process that examined all of the elements.The HT leaders realized long ago that simply relying on elected officials and campaign election cycles would often fail.
Collectively the great angnst generated by unsound and unpopular land use decisions statewide has done little to remove the bad apples.
It's really very simple-for example here in late 2010 a tufsu for instance has a better chance at local office seat than most of the rest of MJ posters.
I personally refrained from seeking political office in Clay county due to the known futility of such a venture.
A correct panel of politicians you envision could probably only come about due to a public more attuned to a conservative vision for growth management."Growth management" has created a sense of complacency.In the mean time,most of the public is compliant with the typical political profile in office,until something Gigantica hits their own back yard.Defense of the back yard is honorable- and the fact there are so many back yards is a tribute to 'growth',and hence the great enmity from development and the classic "NIMBY" phrase usually employed in a negative manner when in fact the issues at stake are in fact the individuals citizens' back yard,literally at times.But the most important person is the one who has not moved here yet-no wonder those in elective roles are faceless too.
You do have valid points points and then some! Maybe educating the electorate might have a bearing, but that would be difficult. If any voter does not due basic research, then they are not getting enough information to make an informed decision and information allows anyone to make that educated choice! I voted YES for Amendment 4 because of what I see taking place.........the excuse of business not coming because of 4 passing,is not substanciated by what I saw or read! Uncontroled and unbridled developement continues and we have no one to blame but ourselves for not taking control of our future. If the persons supposedly watching out for the public don't do their elected jobs, then the public has no choice but to do the job for them!