Regarding the Hometown Democracy proposal that would require votes for changes to compehensive land use plans, no one presumes that the public is bright enough to figure out what is best for them.
The fact is: They are. Let's take a look at its two key sentences.
- "Public participation in local government comprehensive land use planning benefits the conservation and protection of Florida's natural resources and scenic beauty, and the long-term quality of life of Floridians."
Con: The public's elected officials have this right, and the only way the public can change this is to vote them out of office.
Pro: The public sees unstoppable development, overcrowding, traffic issues, pollution and resource issues. It seems that elected officials are not working for the public but are working for the developers.
- "Therefore, before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, such proposed plan, or plan amendment, shall be subject to a vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body as provided by general law, and notice thereof in a local newspaper of general circulation."
Questions and Answers
Q. What situations will result in a referendum?
A. Only those where the land use provisions of the comprehensive plan have to be adopted or amended.
For example: If an area is already designated commercial, then commercial development can go forward, but if a commercial development is proposed for an area designated as conservation, then a referendum would be required.
Q. How often will a referendum be needed?
A. Referendums are only required at regularly scheduled elections.
Q. How will the amendment affect land use planning?
A. It will ensure that land use reflects the needs of the citizens and not the developers.
Q. Doesn't the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) review city and county comprehensive plan changes now, and isn't that a sufficient review of changes?
A. Yes, but funding beyond next year may not be reauthorized.
Conclusion: If you feel that the present system is fine, then vote against Amendment 4.
If you feel that you should have a voice on major land use changes, then vote for Amendment 4.
