Letters to the editor

DAVE ROSS, Edgewater

Jan. 3, 2009

'4' is far from anti-growth

Amendment 4 opponents suggest that voters are not sufficiently informed to make decisions about how their community should grow, that proponents of the proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution are anti-growth and that passing it will inhibit new companies from coming to Florida. There is no evidence to support such allegations.

First, it needs to be understood that Florida regulations prohibit a local government from requiring a developer to appear before a public hearing of the planning and zoning board or a city or a county council until such time as the developer files his plan and chooses to move forward. This prevents local citizens from being well informed and expressing their thoughts and ideas until it is "a done deal."

Amendment 4 would have the positive effect of placing the developer in a position of listening to and incorporating the ideas of the local voting public before "finalizing" his plan.

Secondly, the "anti-growth" accusation is simply not correct. The true objections Florida citizens have arise from the gross overpopulation of communities allowed and promoted by the state's dependence on and influence by the development industry. Even if a massive development meets the criteria of so-called "smart growth," such criteria do not prevent the overwhelming of a community's resources and reduction of the quality of life for its residents.

It also should be pointed out that when the real estate/housing market comes back to normality, the demand for residential development in Florida will likely explode. There are millions of retiring baby boomers waiting for the market to stabilize to make their move to this retirement haven. Also, Florida's official population projections are based on historic data that do not take the baby boomers into account.

Lastly, companies choose their location based on their needs and the communities that best meet those needs. I know of no citizen who would not welcome a good business or industry into their community; we all are very aware of the tremendous tax burden placed on individuals because of the void in our commercial tax base. The premise that voters would not welcome and allow new businesses and that Amendment 4 will scare away potential companies fits well with the scare tactics of the megaresidential developers and their supporters.

DAVE ROSS, Edgewater