Giving voters the say on development plans

By Tom Lyons

January 21, 2010  

As amendment titles go, "Hometown Democracy" is the apple pie kind that usually makes me suspicious.

But this time, the name really isn't far off base. For good or ill, the proposed addition to Florida's Constitution would indeed give local voters more power.

One more power, anyway: A veto power over any changes local elected officials make to comprehensive land use plans, the sort of changes usually made at the urging of a developer.

So developers almost uniformly oppose Amendment 4, because they can usually get elected officials to sign off on changing comprehensive plans -- state-approved growth plans -- by convincing them that their development plans are good for the community, too.

And as Amendment 4 proponent Dan Lobeck likes to remind me, when monied interests fail to convince elected officials, some put their money behind candidates recruited to unseat uncooperative commissioners.

Lobeck, a lawyer and activist known for opposing developers on, well, almost everything, knows well that getting voters to approve changing a growth plan to accommodate development could be tough. For him, this is a golden.

But Amendment 4 makes for a great debate partly because those opposing it have some good points mixed in with the many fibs.

One fib: Amendment 4 would make every little zoning code change go to public vote, glutting ballots with referendums on technical minutia. And the special elections would cost a fortune!

Actually, it calls for no special elections, except when a developer wants to pay for one.

And voters would vote only on the big stuff: changes to the comprehensive growth plan.

My main qualm: I doubt most voters will have much clue about some comp plan changes. Not all are of great interest to the general public, not counting the impassioned few opponents who almost always include Lobeck. It is easy to just vote anti-developer, but harder to know if a change might be a good idea.

And a new Florida law adds a wrinkle: City and county commissions now cannot spend public money to advertise in support or opposition to anything on the ballot. That's good, Lobeck thinks.

"Government shouldn't be able to spend our money to tell us how to vote," he says.

Yeah, but I want voters to know why an elected board thinks a land-use change is a good idea.

Developers could still buy ads, of course. And I bet some will disguise themselves while doing it.

That's what former Speaker of the House John Thrasher did as a lobbyist for developers, when he sent out a warning under the letterhead "Save Our Constitution."

The letter dishonestly and absurdly said Amendment 4 would "ruin Florida's scenic beauty" and "increase your utility bills."

Huh?

Causes hangnails too, no doubt.

Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 361-4964.