November 29, 2009

Letters to the editor  

For fear of '4'

Re Joe Oliver's Nov. 21 letter "Turnout reality" regarding Amendment 4 (Hometown Democracy):

Oliver's fears seem based more in phantasmagoria put out by Amendment 4's foes than in fact. That it would "take away our property rights" is a spook floated to scare folks into voting against their own self-determination. Amendment 4 abrogates no rights. A right must exist to be "taken away."

No Floridian possesses a "right" to a land use change to densely develop areas meant for agriculture, wilderness conservation and/or sparse residences as so designated in comprehensive plans. An owner's "right" is that shared by all others in his area: to operate within whatever land-use type existed when he bought the property.

If he gambles to buy in the sticks, hoping one day zoning will allow the urban jumble he'd erect to make profit, fine. But there is no golden law or constitutional provision -- as those protecting speech or religion -- that says his pursuit of lucre trumps vitals like water supply, listed species and quality of life. His dream payday may not come. His preference takes no precedence over anyone else's (why should it?) -- so a land-use-change amendment application is required if he seeks to convert rural acreage to urban. And justly so, because such conversion distorts and undermines the growth-containment powers in and intended for the local comprehensive plan.

Cities and counties have grown so irreverent toward comp plans and deaf to people's concerns, that Hometown Democracy is imperative. When abuses of such magnitude by government occur that infringe on a citizenry's well-being, then "velvet" revolts are just. That's why we have the avenue for grass-roots amendments to our Constitution.

The alleged "economy-killer" effect predicted if Amendment 4 passes seems bogus. No one knows how all will fall out, but there is much land in existing comp plans to accommodate new business. Any project beyond what conforms to plan parameters would, under Amendment 4, prudently require ratification by those whose lives are subject to its effects.

As to "only a few hundred" voters determining outcomes: this tyrannical minority is rarely decried when whooshing in developer-backed mayors and commissioners.

All change entails risk, but Amendment 4's principles and wording are sound. And the need for it by a populace long taken for chumps is overwhelming.

REBECCA EAGAN, Winter Park

Obstacles to employers

In response to Joe Oliver's letter:

Oliver states that if Amendment 4 is approved by the voters in 2010 Florida will be at a disadvantage while competing with 49 other states for companies that want to relocate and bring with them dearly needed jobs. The obvious question to me is what are the obstacles that have kept these companies away for the last 35 years? (I moved here in 1974). Perhaps it's the poor performing schools, low-paying jobs for everyone including teachers, police officers and fireman. Perhaps it's the clogged roadways. Perhaps it has to do with an economy that relies primarily on building and development.

Companies will move to Volusia County when we have class A schools, a well-educated and prepared work force, safe and unclogged roadways, reasonable property taxes, available water and, most of all, a Legislature committed to giving up on unrestrained development as the only way to fill the state coffers.

Amendment 4 would give everyone time to rethink the Florida Plan, and perhaps question why our beautiful state has to be filled from north to south and east to west with subdivisions in the middle of nowhere, straining the services of local communities. Amendment 4 isn't poison; it's the antidote!

SUZANNE STEINER, Volusia County