Citizens Need to Take Control of Growth Management with Amendment 4?

[Joe]

But issue 4 would only exacerbate the problem of planning professionals having their input discarded for political reasons.

Corrupt sprawl-creating political decisions aren't just made because of developers. Just as often, it's community groups and citizen organizations who unjustly influence the planning process. Virtually any time a developer tries to build "smart growth" a vast sea of NIMBY opposition groups complain to their elected leaders. These NIMBY's are subverting the political process just as much as anyone else.

Issue 4 would institutionalize this destructive behavior. Entire cities would be held hostage to comprehensive plans that were created 15 years ago by consultants who didn't correctly predict future market conditions. Indeed, the entire process of comprehensive planning presumes that the plans are SUPPOSED to be amended frequently. Issue 4 would kill that dynamic.

Ultimately, the ONLY way that issue 4 would be beneficial to Jacksonville is if the Jax planning department put a mixed-use urban overlay (whether New Urbanist, TOD, smart growth, or whatever) as a permitted use over the entire built-up county in the next comp plan. Which isn't going to happen, unfortunately. And even then, it would probably create a bureaucratic nightmare, along with low-density sprawl in St Johns, Clay, Nassau, and Baker.

[stjr]

^ Joe, it may still be political, but it will become the people's politics, not the developers politics.  I am not saying that is better, but perception counts for a lot.  Same reason voters like to elect officials rather than have them appointed even though appointments may result in better personnel due to a professional vetting process (if it is adhered to).

If there are those here who oppose Amendment 4, you need to suggest a system that replaces what we have that will work better than the status quo OR Amendment 4.  Still waiting to see that plan posted here.