By Molly McGowan
It’s been called the “Vote on Everything” amendment by skeptics and considered the cure to the “boom and bust” cycle of real estate by proponents, but on Nov. 2, Amendment 4 on the ballot will be called by a more complex name.
Voters will see this title: “Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans.” In layman’s terms: “Should voter approval be required for changes to growth management plans? Should voters be able to veto a plan because they don’t approve of the new blueprint for their city or county or of new proposed developments?”
Cynics say no, that Amendment 4 would just create more taxpayer expenses, resulting from litigation that would inevitably follow vetoes to changes in land use plans. According to the Florida Chamber of Commerce, one of Amendment 4’s most staunch opponents, city and county governments would have to hold referenda on upwards of hundreds or thousands of referenda annually, which would be quite costly.
That’s the main point that the opposition wants voters to be aware of — that Amendment 4 could be potentially costly for taxpayers, and more of a hassle than a privilege when it comes to voting time.
Adam Babington, vice president of governmental affairs at the chamber, said that under Amendment 4, the cost of holding elections would be between $44 and $83 million a year and litigation expenses could hit a billion dollars for the state of Florida.
Babington stated that “it’s pretty clear Florida is still in a recession,” and that Amendment 4 would only make things worse for taxpayers.
Meanwhile, those backing the amendment argue that it’s important for voters to realize the power and influence that voting “yes” on Amendment 4 would give them in the state government. Wayne Garcia, communications director for Florida Hometown Democracy, said Amendment 4 would give taxpayers and citizens the control they deserve over the land use system, allowing them to help decide how available land will be used, and which developments will be built where.
Garcia said that since it’s the taxpayer’s dollars that pay for changes in land use plans, they should be directly involved in the decision-making processes. Garcia also said the argument that Amendment 4 would increase election costs is invalid; the Department of Community Affairs tracked how many land use amendments there had actually been over the past few years, and came up with an average of 4.2 a year.
Garcia and other Amendment 4 supporters regard Land O’ Lakes’ Connerton neighborhood as an example of why Amendment 4 should be put into place. According to Garcia, the empty lots that were approved for homes within the development are now just a waste of space, and are examples of a “boom and bust” cycle of real estate that could be checked under Amendment 4.
Garcia also cites the city of St. Pete Beach as proof that there wouldn’t be an obscene amount of amendments proposed annually under Amendment 4. Garcia said the city of St. Pete Beach reviewed every comprehensive land use change since 2005 and found 25 proposed amendments, of which only 22 were approved and would have gone to election.
Spread across four election periods, only five or six of those amendments would have appeared annually on ballots under the amendment. Garcia said that this number of amendments would be reasonable for Florida voters, and that over time, would probably decrease. “I think there will be even fewer amendments once people learn to live within their means and their comprehensive plans,” Garcia said.
Babington and the Florida Chamber of Commerce look at St. Pete’s charter with a much more critical eye and see the attempt as a failure. Babington said that within 24 hours of amendments being drawn up for the city in 2008, a series of lawsuits and complaints were filed.
Babington said that over the course of the following year, the local government had incurred over $5,000 in litigation fees and by September 2009, property taxes had to be raised in order to help pay for them. So Babington – and the rest of the amendment’s opponents – view Amendment 4 as a surefire failure waiting to happen. “This isn’t just speculation of how it’s going to work,” Babington said. “We have a case study of how it’s worked in Florida, and it’s failed miserably.”
Florida Hometown Democracy countered that the expensive litigation that resulted in St. Petersburg was a result of developers who wanted to build enormous hotels on the waterfront and negatively affect the city’s population density, and not of the change in the charter.
Regardless of what ultimately caused the litigation expenses in St. Petersburg, decisions on Amendment 4 will ultimately be based on whether they believe more direct control in their government is worth having to make more decisions on future ballots.
Early voting
Don’t wait until Election Day to sound off on Amendment 4 and other issues. Early voting started this week and continues through Saturday, Oct. 30. Most locations allow voting 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. There will no voting on Sunday, Oct. 24.
Hillsborough early voting sites
Jimmie B. Keel Regional Library, 2902 W. Bearss Ave. in Carrollwood
New Tampa Regional Library, 10001 Cross Creek Blvd. in New Tampa
County Center, 601 E. Kennedy Blvd. in Tampa (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.)
More locations at www.votehillsborough.org
Pasco early voting sites
(Saturday hours are 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.)
Land O’ Lakes Branch Library, 2818 Collier Parkway in Land O’ Lakes
Village Market of Wesley Chapel, 5325 Village Market in Wesley Chapel
New River Branch Library, 34043 SR 54 in Zephyrhills
East Pasco Government Center, 14236 Sixth St. in Dade City
South Holiday Branch Library, 4649 Mile Stretch Drive in Holiday
West Pasco Government Center, 7530 Little Road in New Port Richey
Hudson Regional Library, 8012 Library Road in Hudson
