|
|
|
Originally Published Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Treasure Coast Palm
As the campaign for Florida Hometown Democracy approaches a Jan. 31 deadline for collecting ballot petitions, the opposition is building. Benign neglect has turned into active attacks.
The latest fusillade comes from a curious source -- 1000 Friends of Florida, a Tallahassee-based consortium that advertises itself as the state’s premier environmental organization. The Friends’ widely distributed objections are doubly dubious, considering that the group’s 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service limits substantial lobbying on citizen initiatives, such as FHD.
In a detailed position paper, 1000 Friends aimed six shots at Hometown Democracy’s proposal to require voter referendums on local comprehensive plan changes. Here is a synopsis of the Friends’ objections, followed by responses from Ross Burnaman, a Florida attorney who co-authored FHD:
HIGH-PRICED MEDIA CAMPAIGNS
Debates would favor large developers over grass-roots groups.
• Burnaman: In St. Pete Beach, a small grass-roots group of citizens proposed in mid-2005 several charter amendments, including one to require local referendums on comprehensive plan amendments. Despite being outspent by large development interests and being sued by the city to snuff out the charter amendments, the grass-roots group won at the ballot box in November 2006. More recently, a group of citizens-proposed charter amendments to the Sarasota County and Sarasota City charters to require a supermajority vote of local elected officials on certain comprehensive plan amendments. More than 60 percent of voters approved both measures.
NIMBYISM (“NOT IN MY BACKYARD”)
Local governments would find it much more difficult to adopt amendments related to often-controversial but much-needed community projects, such as affordable housing, schools, transit systems, landfills and other public facilities, leading local governments to pursue either more costly or less desirable alternatives.
• Burnaman: If local elected officials decide that such plan amendments are necessary, they ought to be able to convince a majority of local voters to approve a change in the status-quo for such facilities.
PIECEMEAL PLANNING
FHD would remove the “comprehensive” from the comprehensive planning approach, resulting in a series of uncoordinated, piecemeal decisions driven by popularity, rather than necessity.
• Burnaman: The Florida Supreme Court has characterized all comprehensive plan amendments as “legislative decisions.” So, despite 1000 Friends’ implication that planning decisions are presently made by “necessity,” the simple truth is that all comprehensive plan votes made by local elected officials are political decisions. FHD’s proposed amendment would merely add a “citizen veto” as the last step in the process.
SPRAWL
This proposal could limit responsible new development in more populated, urbanized areas, forcing development out into rural areas, which have fewer people to oppose the proposed plan amendment. It could also limit efforts to pass plan amendments intended to less sprawling patterns of development.
• Burnaman: 1000 Friends believes that increasing public participation is a bad thing. I have more faith in Floridians. The first sentence of the FHD amendment states, “Public participation in local government comprehensive planning benefits the conservation and protection of Florida’s natural resources and scenic beauty, and long-term quality of life.” Slowly, Floridians are waking up to the fact that existing sprawling development patterns are too costly and inefficient.
LEGAL GRIDLOCK
A series of legal challenges will likely be necessary because of the vague wording of the proposed amendment. Questions include: Will plan amendments be voted on individually or in a bundled package? Will the amendments be considered at regular elections or will special elections be required? Who will pay for the new and increased costs associated with these elections? What happens if voters approve an amendment found “not in compliance” by the Florida Department of Community Affairs? What happens if required changes are not approved?
• Burnaman: The Florida Supreme Court has already rejected arguments that FHD is “vague.” The fact that some of the implementation details will be left to the Florida Legislature and local officials hardly translates to “legal gridlock.” It is ironic that 1000 Friends touts its “legal advocacy,” yet opposes FHD because some judicial interpretation may be necessary.
LEGISLATIVE BACKLASH
To avoid such legal challenges, the Florida Legislature could change the plan amendment process for the worse, reduce the ability of citizens to challenge plan amendments or undertake other similarly drastic and counterproductive alternatives that would render FHD -- and Florida’s growth-management process -- moot.
• Burnaman: The lack of leadership by the Florida Legislature has resulted in a failed Growth Management Act. The Florida Supreme Court has declared that local land use planning is mandated by Article II, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution. Accordingly, the Legislature’s ability to “change the plan amendment process for the worse” provides support for, and not a reason to oppose, FHD’s effort to enhance Article II, Section. 7.
Ken.Ward@scripps.com
| |
|