Florida Comprehensive Land Use Plans, Amendment 4 (2010)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Florida Comprehensive Land Use Plans, Amendment 4, also known as "Referenda Required For Adoption And Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans," is on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment to the Florida Constitution. The initiative proposes to require a taxpayer-funded referendum for all changes to local government comprehensive land-use plans.[1]

The initiative will appear on the November ballot as Amendment 4. In order to pass, the amendment needs at least 60% of the total votes.[2] On June 17, 2009 the Florida Supreme Court tossed out a challenge and on June 22nd the Florida Division of Elections certified the amendment.[3]

Text of measure

Title

Amendment 4's official ballot title is:

Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans.

Summary

The official ballot summary is:

Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides definitions.[4]

Financial impact statement

The official Financial Impact Statement is:

The amendment's impact on local government expenditures cannot be estimated precisely. Local governments will incur additional costs due to the requirement to conduct referenda in order to adopt comprehensive plans or amendments thereto. The amount of such costs depends upon the frequency, timing and method of the referenda, and includes the costs of ballot preparation, election administration, and associated expenses. The impact on state government expenditures will be insignificant.[5]

Constitutional changes

See also: Florida Amendment 4 (2010), constitutional text changes
Florida Constitution
Articles
Preamble • I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII

If Amendment 4 is approved on November 2, it will amend Section 7 of Article II of the Florida Constitution by adding a new subsection, which can be read here.

Background

County and city commissioners evaluate comprehensive plan amendments after proposed changes are reviewed by the local planning commission, vetted by the public (via public hearings), receive recommendations from local government planning staff, receive input from seven state agencies and are approved by Florida's Department of Community Affairs.[6][7][8] According to state records, in fiscal year 2006, there were 6,406 amendments to local comprehensive plans.[9] If passed, Amendment 4 would require a taxpayer-funded referendum for all such changes.[10][11]

2008 initiative effort

See also: Florida Referendum for Land Use (2008)

Florida Hometown Democracy attempted to qualify a referendum for land use in 2008, however, the petition failed to collect enough signatures by the February 1, 2008 deadline. According to reports, this was due in part to an electronic glitch in the state of Florida's electronic signature tally. As a result of that glitch, supporters of the initiative learned two weeks before the deadline that they were 11,000 signatures short of the requirement, when it was believed that they had sufficient signatures. Supporters filed a lawsuit on June 11, 2008 - Florida Hometown Democracy v. Browning. Initiative efforts were redirected to the 2010 ballot.

Support

The initiative is sponsored and funded by a Political Action Committee (PAC) called Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc. Florida Hometown Democracy is primarily funded by its author and president, Lesley Blackner, a Palm Beach attorney.[12] "Mismanaged growth destroys communities," said Blackner.[1]

Supporters argue that Amendment 4 will simply add "another layer of protection against unwanted developments." According to the Hometown Democracy website, "Rising taxes, falling home values, gridlocked roads, dwindling water supplies and Florida’s disappearing beauty are just some of the devastating consequences of Florida politicians’ habit of rubberstamping speculative plan changes. Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 changes all that by giving voters veto power over these changes to your community’s master plan for growth."[13]

Arguments

See also: Florida Amendment 4 (2010), support, arguments
  • Political columnist Ron Littlepage wrote in The Florida Times-Union: "In other words, legislators have pretty much given free rein to developers to continue building; quality of life and the state's natural resources be damned, even though there are currently 300,000 homes in Florida sitting empty." Littlepage noted that "direct democracy on land use changes may be the only way to promote smart growth in Florida."[14]
  • Dan Lobeck, a land use attorney and president of Control Growth Now, said,"Business as usual has led us to ruin, and will lead us to greater ruin if it's not reigned in. Amendment Four is a reasonable, balanced proposal to rein in over-development, but giving the voters a veto over plans that will shape the future of your community, for better or worse."[15]
  • Andrew Dickman, a land use attorney from Naples who represented Hometown Democracy during a March 2010 debate, said, "Amendment 4 will level the playing field and give citizens the opportunity to vote on plans that affect them." Additionally, Dickman argues that since the 1985 adoption of the state's Growth Management Act, "sprawl has not been contained."[16]
  • Manatee County Commissioner Joe McClash said, "It's all about what is good for the place we call home" and argued that he doesn't see any harm in the measure.[17]
  • In response to the opposition Lesley Blackner, president of Florida Hometown Democracy, wrote in a March 12 editorial that Amendment 4 will not stop Sarasota County's growth, "but it will help confine growth to where it is now allocated in the county's comprehensive plan. There is enough future commercial and residential development already approved in the comprehensive land-use plan to keep construction workers building for decades. That's what the Sarasota 2050 plan is all about."[18]
  • Martin County Commissioner Sarah Heard endorsed Amendment 4 in April 2010 during a Martin County rally.[19]

Opposition

Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy is the main organization leading the effort in opposition to Amendment 4. Over 280 statewide business, labor, and environmental organizations, including the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the Florida AFL-CIO and 1,000 Friends of Florida - an environmental group, have expressed opposition to Amendment 4. These groups say that Amendment 4 will make Florida’s recession permanent by increasing taxes and contributing to unemployment.[20][21] Mark Wilson, President of the Florida Chamber of Commerce said, "If you like the recession, you’ll love Amendment 4.” [22]

Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy executive director, Ryan Houck, called Amendment 4 "a stimulus package for special interest lawyers." Pointing to the interests behind Amendment 4, he went on to say that "Amendment 4 is not designed to empower voters; it's designed to empower special interest lawyers, and hand taxpayers the bill."[23]

Arguments

See also: Florida Amendment 4 (2010), opposition, arguments
  • In response to the initiative, some Floridians have started a campaign, Floridians for Smarter Growth. The group proposed a different take on the currently proposed Smarter Growth Land Use Initiative; to require voter approval of changes to local land-use plans only if 10 percent of local voters sign a petition calling for the referendum.[1] However, the measure failed to collect sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot.
    • Supporters of the alternate measure formed a group called Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy in opposition of Amendment 4. Ryan Houck, former executive director of Floridians for Smarter Growth, serves as the executive director of the new group. Houck argues that the proposed measure may cost the state $4 billion in lost "economic opportunities."[24]
  • The National Federation of Independent Business, Florida opposes Amendment 4, saying that "While November will be a busy election season, no issue on the 2010 ballot will be more important than Amendment 4. In this tough economy, the last thing Florida needs is an irresponsible amendment that will cost jobs, raise taxes and make it more expensive to live in our state."[25]
  • In 2007 1000 Friends of Florida said Amendment 4 "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 lessen sprawling patterns of development."[26]
  • The Coalition for Property Rights opposes Amendment 4, arguing that Amendment 4 "represents a direct assault on the foundation of freedom our Founding Fathers created when they drafted the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights."[27]
  • The Florida Farm Bureau opposes Amendment 4, saying that "Florida's jobless rate is high; but it could get much, much worse with the passage of Amendment 4. At a time when many families and small businesses are struggling to make ends meet, that's the last thing we need."[28]
  • The Florida American Institute of Architects opposes Amendment 4, saying that "Amendment 4 would affect our state's economy and quality of life by requiring every local government comprehensive plan change to be approved by voters. It would result in an average of 200 - 300 plan changes to be approved every year, greatly increasing the cost of local government, place unreasonable and expensive burdens on business and property owners, and limit the ability of our communities to adapt to the challenges of the 21st century."[29]
  • The Florida AFL-CIO joined a business coalition to oppose Amendment 4. Frank Ortis, an executive board member with the Florida AFL-CIO said "Defeating Amendment 4 means protecting jobs. As Floridians attempt to recover from the worst recession in a generation, Amendment 4 threatens to drive the jobless rate higher, prolong the recession, and hurt our state’s working families."[30]

Tactics and strategies

Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy - the campaign to defeat Amendment 4 - has launched a web-video series featuring dozens of Florida leaders who are opposed to Amendment 4, including local business owners, citizens groups, elected officials, environmentalists, union leaders and non-profit leaders.[31]

On June 9, 2010 business executives gathered for a fundraiser in opposition of Amendment 4. The fundraiser was hosted by the Broward Workshop, a group of business leaders, at the YOLO Restaurant. According to reports, AutoNation executive Mike Jackson and JM Family Enterprises executive Colin Brown each gave about $50,000. The Broward Workshop donated $100,000.[32]

Media editorial positions

Main article: Endorsements of Florida ballot measures, 2010

Editorial boards opposed

  • The Palm Beach Post is opposed to Amendment 4. In an editorial, the board said,"Its backers argue that only the people can stop bad developers, but the amendment is overkill. It would waste the public's money, penalize developers who weren't trying to game the system and pour sand into Florida's business engine."[33]
  • The South Florida Sun-Sentinel voiced opposition to Amendment 4. The editorial board said, "Informed voters wouldn't just have to navigate the ballot's pedantic land-use language; they'd have to suffer months of electioneering by those wanting their vote. And because developers would almost always trump grass-roots organizations in spending, they'd stand a good chance of winning anyway." [34]
  • The St. Petersburg Times is opposed to the Hometown Democracy amendment. In an editorial, the board said, "As a three-year experiment in St. Pete Beach shows, land planning via referendum is a messy, unpredictable business that leads to higher government costs due to litigation and a stalemate when it comes to development. Hometown Democracy backers argue that is preferable to the status quo, where developers too easily get their way with local officials. But replacing an imperfect model with one just as flawed — and just as likely to be exploited by well-financed developers — isn't the answer."[35]
  • The Florida Times-Union is opposed to Amendment 4. In an editorial they said, "There has to be a better way...In Jacksonville last year, 67 land use amendments were processed. Can you imagine 67 separate land use changes on a ballot? That is like using a machine gun to kill a flea. It is an extreme reaction to some clear abuses, the overuse of changes in comprehensive plans that have been dominated by insiders, leaving neighbors and the public too much out of the loop... but don't make the solution worse than the problem."[36]
  • The Tampa Tribune voiced opposition to Amendment 4. The editorial board said, "Voters could easily end up unknowingly voting against their own best interests. That’s no way to run a little city, and it’s certainly no way to run a state."[37]
  • The Ponte Vedra Recorder is opposed to Amendment 4. In an editorial, the board said, "On the surface it sounds like a good idea. Even the name inspires good feelings. We all have a warm spot in our hearts for our hometown, and democracy — how could that be bad? The answer is it can be bad on several levels, not the least of which is that it will fail to do what its proponents promise."[38]
  • The Panama City News Herald is opposed to Amendment 4. In a 2009 editorial the editorial board said, "The ensuing gridlock could do more than cool off overheated development — it could retard it to the point that the economy suffers. That’s an especially bad risk to take at a time when Florida’s is struggling to emerge from a deep recession."[39]
  • The Orlando Sentinel is opposed to Amendment 4. In a 2009 editorial the editorial board said, "The cost to local governments of including the land-use amendments on ballots would soar into the millions." [40]
  • The Gainesville Sun is opposed to Amendment 4. In a 2010 editorial the editorial board said, "Amendment 4 is a well meaning, but ultimately flawed, proposal that voters should reject." [41]

Donors

Support


Vote YES on Amendment 4, 06-09-10

The initiative is supported by a Political Action Committee (PAC) called Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc.[42] According to Florida's Campaign Finance Database as of the last filing report on July 30, 2010 the PAC has received $1,715,221.28 in monetary contributions. (NOTE: Those totals include activity since 2003) In 2010 alone, the PAC is reported to have received $217,894.95 in monetary contributions, $13,555.66 in in-kind contributions and spent $117,011.14.[43]

Below is a chart that outlines the top 5 major contributions to the "Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc." PAC in 2010:[44]

Contributor Amount
Florida Watch Action, Inc. $60,000
Steven Rosen - Tend Skin Int'l (Skin Care) $30,000
Leslie Blackner $22,385
Volusia Flagler Sierra Club $17,500
Floridians for a Sustainable Population $10,000

Below is a chart that outlines the top 5 major contributions to the "Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc." PAC since 2003:[45]

Contributor Amount
Lesley Blackner (Lawyer) $828,749
Steven Rosen / Tend Skin Int'l (Skin Care) $635,000
Sierra Club of Florida $186,470
Joe Redner $37,035
Floridians for a Sustainable Population $33,538

Opposition


Vote NO on Amendment 4, 08-05-10

The PAC in opposition to Amendment 4 is Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy.[46] According to Florida's Campaign Finance Database as of the last filing report on July 30, 2010 the PAC has received $5,990,952.43 in monetary contributions, $32,113.80 in in-kind contributions and has spent $524,611.95.[47]

Below is a chart that outlines the top 5 major cash contributions to the Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy PAC in 2010:[48]

Contributor Amount
Florida Association of Realtors Advocacy (Real Estate) $1,000,000
Pulte Homes Corp. (Home Building) $567,000
Floridians for Smarter Growth (Non-Profit) $487,269
Lennar Family of Builders (Home Building) $367,000
Florida Chamber of Commerce, Inc. (Business Community) $325,000

Campaign Finance Law Violations

Complaints against Hometown Democracy

The Florida Elections Commission has received two election complaints against Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc. for a series of possible campaign finance law violations. Both complaints were filed by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and, in total, cite more than 115 separate violations of campaign finance law. Potential fines for such violations rise to nearly $120,000.[49] The case is currently pending.

Controversies

Controversial email

Amendment 4 author and president Lesley Blackner was called upon to apologize for racially-insensitive remarks made in a public e-mail. The flare-up was widely reported in the press. According to news reports, in a May 13 e-mail to the director of the Volusia Council of Government, Blackner wrote, "I’m only too aware of your step & fetch it for the Chamber of Commerce crowd opposing Amendment 4." Soon after, Amendment 4 opponent and former South Bay Mayor Clarence Anthony called Blackner out on her use of the phrase "step & fetch." Blackner promptly apologized. "I’ve used the phrase for years and had no idea anybody thought it had any racial overtones. If Mr. Anthony is offended, I’m sorry...I tell you what, I won’t use that term any more," she said.[50]

Others, however, argue that Mary Swiderski, executive director of the Volusia Council of Governments, made matters worse when she forwarded the entire email to approximately 300 people. The forwarded portion, some argue, should not have included the intro written by Blackner. The controversial phrase appeared in the introduction. The intro reads: "Please send the following to your entire list. I'll know if it happens. I'm only too aware of your step and fetch it for the Chamber of Commerce crowd opposing Amendment 4." Instead, what should have been included in the forwarded email, according to arguments, should have only been the text listed below the introduction.[51]

The controversial phrase is usually associated with a stage name used by black actor Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry when he portrayed "shuffling, mumbling, servile movie characters in the 1930s and ’40s."[50]

Reports and analysis

Washington Economics Group study

The Washington Economics Group conducted an economic impact study on Amendment 4. The study was funded by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, a financial contributor to the Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, opponents of the proposed measure. The study was released on January 26, 2010.[52][53]

According to the study, the proposed amendment, if approved by voters, would result in job losses and higher taxes in the state of Florida. "An estimated 267,247 high-wage jobs for Florida residents are at risk directly or indirectly from the potential adverse impacts associated with the passage of Amendment 4 in the Most Likely Scenario. In this scenario, real estate development and other capital projects-phase activities are directly responsible for endangering 125,616 jobs in the Construction, Knowledge-Based Services, retail and related support industrial sectors," reported the study. In addition to the possible job losses, the study reports that labor income could fall $4.7-$11.8 billion; the state's gross domestic product could decline $6.5-$16.4 billion; and federal, state and local tax revenues could drop $1.6-$4.1 billion. In total, the study estimates an economic impact of $13.9-$34.7 billion.[54]

Response by UCF professors

Dr. Mark Soskin and Dr. Bradley Braun, economics professors at the University of Central Florida, reviewed the study released by the Washington Economics Group and concluded that the projected impacts were not valid. "We definitively conclude without reservation that none of the WEG Report impact forecasts contain any useful information, and their findings should be entirely disregarded as irredeemably flawed," they said. In their review, both professors found that the study's conclusion about job losses lacked concrete evidence connecting Amendment 4 with the job losses. In conclusion, Soskin and Braun said that the report "lacks the quantitative data required to generate any impact estimates. The direct impact data is invented in a classic “garbage in, garbage-out” exercise of pseudo-science.[55]

Response by Nassau Analysis Group

In March 2010, following the release of the Washington Economics Group report, the Nassau Analysis Group, a non-profit organization, evaluated the report to determine its accuracy. According to Nassau's review the study uses a methodology called the IMPLAN Model, a reportedly common and widely accepted method that allows for calculations of "inter-industry linkages." However, Nassau points out that WEG failed to provide the assumptions regarding time frame and development expectations that were used in the study. For example, it is not clear if data is used pre-recession, in 2007, and what steps, if any, were taken to accommodate those economic factors. According to the group, "Once the matter of assumptions is questioned the entire analysis falls apart."[56]

Rebuttal to Nassau Analysis Group

Following a report by The Nassau Analysis Group which reportedly criticized the assumptions made in WEG's study, the Washington Economics Group issued a response that said, "The Nassau Analysis Group criticizes the assumptions made in WEG’s scenarios of possible impacts of Amendment 4. These assumptions were extensively researched by WEG’s experienced and senior economics team over a period of months." Additionally, the organization detailed the assumptions used in their study: they examined the negative economic development experience in St. Pete Beach; they analyzed the language in Amendment 4 and looked at the costs to local entities (lawsuits and lost job creation); reviewed public testimony to the Florida Legislature of economic experts concerning possible negative impacts of the same amendment a few years ago.[57]

Dr. Henry Fishkind review

Dr. Henry Fishkind, a Florida economist, argued in a radio interview that Amendment 4 would inundate voters with thousands of pages of technical planning data, promote greater politicization of the planning process. Additionally, Fishkind goes on to refute a pro-Amendment 4 argument that comprehensive land use plan allowing for additional growth and development are easily amended. Fishkind said they are not, on the contrary, he argues that they are difficult to amend and need to be updated all the time. Fishkind argues that setting limitations on amending such plans could be problematic.[58] The full radio interview can be heard here.

Test cases

St. Pete Beach

In 2006, the Florida town of St. Pete Beach adopted a local version of Amendment 4. [59]

Former St. Pete Beach Mayor, Ward Friszolowski, explained:

Since the measure was passed, the residents of St. Pete Beach have endured endless lawsuits and seen little progress...In St. Pete Beach, any proposed change to our town's comprehensive plan is thrust onto the ballot. Public planning has been replaced with political infighting and a parade of unintended consequences has ensued. I can only begin to imagine the kind of chaos Amendment 4 would cause if it were ever forced onto every community in Florida. After adopting a local version of Amendment 4, it wasn't long before we realized that 600-page comprehensive plans couldn't easily be condensed into 75-word ballot questions. The elections are confusing, chaotic and expensive.[60]

Kevin Hing, the Chairman of St. Pete Beach's Beach Stewardship Committee and a local attorney launched a blog entitled St. Pete Beach and Amendment 4 dedicated to disecting the nuances of his town's experiment in Amendment 4. Hing wrote that, "St. Pete Beach is unique in one respect: when we finally realized how overbroad, costly and unworkable our Hometown Democracy-style system was, we repealed it by an overwhelming majority vote of the people. Unfortunately, if Amendment 4 passes, it will be virtually impossible to repeal. Unlike the people of St. Pete Beach, the people of Florida will not be able to fix their mistake."[61]

Yankeetown

Some cities in Florida have already implemented local versions of the proposed Amendment 4. In Yankeetown in Levy County a charter amendment was passed in 2007. Through the implementation of a localized version of Amendment 4, Yankeetown was required to hold a referendum on all changes to the local comprehensive plan. The town consists of roughly 700 residents. Yankeetown City Councilmember Larry Feldhusen said, "In our community, developers wanted to build out Yankeetown in a way that did not fit with our community’s vision. Passing our local version of Hometown Democracy has given voters the opportunity to approve or veto proposed changes. On issues that are directly affecting our homes and the future of our cities, people ought to have that vote." Former Councilmember Ed Candela said, "I started the Charter Amendment Campaign in Yankeetown because I was talking with voters who felt strongly about the development of their communities and who were being ignored by elected officials. Voters should have a say in matters that greatly affect them - which is why we organized to pass the Charter Amendment in Yankeetown in 2007."[62]

But according to Carl Mazzuca and other residents of Yankeetown, "We have first hand experience with this radical, very unconstitutional idea and their crazed drive to destroy representative government. Yankeetown is under the dark cloud of Hometown Democracy and we can and will tell the story from our simple county perspective."[63]

According to reports, in 2007 Yankeetown faced several lawsuits from developers and spent a reported $23,000 in fees. The city's operating budget is estimated at $1 million.[64]

On February 23, 2010 residents voted on referenda that proposed eliminating the referendum requirements for capital improvements. According to Yankeetown election results, 81 voted yes, while 77 voted no.

In what "Vote No on 4" calls "Rapid Response Videos," Ryan Houck, executive director of the campaign, said, "If [Amendment 4] is too extreme for a town of 700 residents, and we know it didn't work and created an economic nightmare in a town of 10,000 people - St. Pete Beach - then what it will mean to Florida, a state of 18 million people?"</ref>Vote No on 4 (on Youtube),"Rapid Response: Yankeetown," August 5, 2010</ref>

Polls

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures
Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
Feb. 5-17, 2010 The Nielsen Company 51% 43% 6% 1,282
May 3-5, 2010 Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. 61% 18% 21% 625

Path to the ballot

See also: Florida signature requirements and 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

Amendment 4's path to the November 2, 2010 ballot was a roller coaster ride with several stops in courtrooms along the way. Initiative supporters in Florida had four years to collect signatures to qualify a measure for the ballot. Supporters of the Hometown Democracy Initiative began their effort on June 22, 2005.

Before the effort was complete, Florida Hometown Democracy had spent more than $1 million hiring paid petition gathers to collect enough signatures to reach the ballot. "[69]

  • The Florida State Legislature enacted a law in 2007 allowing residents to revoke their signatures, and opponents began a campaign urging people to remove their signatures. Approximately 13,280 revocation requests were submitted.
  • The initiative needed 676,811 valid signatures. As of June 8, 2009, supporters had collected 691,896 signatures. However, if signatures were revoked, the petition would have been 150 signatures short of the valid signature requirement.

2007 signature law challenged

See also: Florida Hometown Democracy v. Browning
  • Florida Hometown Democracy president Lesley Blackner and co-author of the petition, Ross Burnaman, sued to overturn the 2007 signature revocation law, and in June 2009 it became clear that they would need to win their lawsuit in order to qualify the measure for the 2010 ballot.[6]
  • The Florida Court of Appeals struck down the legislation allowing signature revocation on April 23, 2008.
  • The state appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
  • The Supreme Court heard the case, Florida Hometown Democracy v Browning, on January 8, 2009.[70]
  • As of June 8, 2009 supporters have collected 691,896 signatures. In order to add the question to the 2010 state ballot 676,811 verified signatures must first be collected, according to state signature requirements.
  • If the Florida Supreme Court had not issued its decision before June 22, 2009, there was a concern that supporters could have lost their signatures. Ross Burnaman, an attorney for Hometown Democracy, said: "In effect, this court's failure to expeditiously decide this case has the unintended consequence of diminishing a fundamental constitutional right."[71]

Florida judges strike signature law

The state's high court did, on June 17, 2009, issue its decision that the 2007 signature revocation law was unconstitutional, after a 4-2 vote.[72] According to the judges' 66-page opinion, laws relating to the constitutional right of Floridians to revise the state constitution must be neutral. However, the 2007 legislatively-approved law favored opponents to constitutional changes. In the opinion, they wrote,"The politically charged counter-petition revocation campaigns created by these provisions in operation would essentially eviscerate and render meaningless the citizen-initiative process," the justices wrote in the unsigned plurality decision."[73][74]

See also

 		Suggest a link

Related measures

"Not on ballot" icon Florida Referendum for Land Use (2008)
"Not on ballot" icon Florida Smarter Growth Land Use Initiative (2010)

Articles

External links

Text and content

Support

Opposition

Additional reading

Editorials

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Financial Impact Estimating Conference,"Official Financial Information Statement"
  2. ↑ Examiner,'Ballot initiative: Florida voters to decide Constitutional Amendment on building and development," May 14, 2010
  3. ↑ The West Volusia Beacon,"Hometown Democracy referendum makes the ballot," June 26, 2009
  4. ↑ Florida Hometown Democracy FAQ
  5. ↑ Financial Impact Estimating Conference
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Palm Beach Post,"Anti-development 'Hometown Democracy' amendment has enough signatures for 2010 ballot, supporters say," June 8,2009
  7. ↑ NPR,"Florida Land Use Changes Could Be In Voters' Hands," May 31, 2010
  8. ↑ Florida Department of Community Affairs,"Growth Management and Comprehensive Planning"
  9. ↑ Florida Department of Community Affairs,"Florida Department of Community Affairs Sunset Review," Page 72
  10. ↑ The Tampa Tribune,"2010 referendum on growth management developing," June 6,2009
  11. ↑ St. Petersburg Times,"A look at the nine amendments on Florida's ballot," May 30, 2010
  12. ↑ St. Petersburg Times,"Lesley Blackner Staying Put," February 25, 2008
  13. ↑ Florida Hometown Democracy,"Main Page," retrieved March 11, 2010
  14. ↑ The Florida Times-Union,"Floridians need more say in development decisions," May 21,2009
  15. ↑ WUSF,"Hometown Democracy" Pros, Cons Debated," February 19, 2010
  16. ↑ Naples Daily News,"Proponents, opponents of Hometown Democracy lay out pros, cons of amendment," March 9, 2010
  17. ↑ Bradenton,"Biz group urged to fight against Amendment 4," March 11, 2010
  18. ↑ Herald Tribune,"Amendment 4 for livability," March 12, 2010
  19. ↑ TCPalm,"Heard endorses Amendment 4 on land use changes at Martin County rally," April 13, 2010
  20. ↑ Highlands Today,"Hometown Democracy expected on 2010 ballot," June 9,2009
  21. ↑ VoteNOon4,"Florida AFL-CIO Votes to Oppose Amendment 4," July 22, 2010
  22. ↑ "Business Development Board","Amendment 4 likely to cost 267,247 Florida jobs, major economic study says" January 28,2010
  23. ↑ Vote No on 4,"Amendment 4 opens the floodgates for special interest lawsuits," April 30, 2010
  24. ↑ West Volusia Beacon,"Hometown Democracy debate sure to heat up," March 8, 2010
  25. ↑ National Federation of Independent Business,"What would Amendment 4 do to Florida?," retrieved August 24, 2010
  26. ↑ 1000 Friends of Florida Hometown Democracy Constitutional Ballot Amendment," October 2007
  27. ↑ The Coalition for Property Rights,"The Hometown Democracy Amendment," retrieved August 24, 2010
  28. ↑ Florida Farm Bureau,"Amendment 4: What every Floridian should know
," July 23, 2010
  29. ↑ AIA Florida,"Amendment 4 - 2010 Ballot," retrieved August 24, 2010
  30. ↑ Orlando Sentinel,"Florida AFL-CIO opposing Amendment 4," July 23, 2010
  31. ↑ Vote No on 4,"Citizens Videos," retrieved August 18, 2010
  32. ↑ Sun Sentinel,"Business leaders, neighborhood activists clash over ballot issue on growth," June 9, 2010
  33. ↑ The Palm Beach Post,"One bad amendment enough: Focus on killing 'Hometown Democracy' sham," February 5, 2010
  34. ↑ Sun-Sentinel,"Initiative to give voters control over development makes it on the 2010 ballot," October 6, 2009
  35. ↑ St. Petersburg Times,"A formula for gridlock," June 28, 2009
  36. ↑ The Florida Times-Union,"Florida's growth: A better way," March 19, 2010
  37. ↑ The Tampa Tribune,"Voting On Everything Dispirits Tourist Business In Tourist Town," May 28, 2008
  38. ↑ Ponte Vedra Recorder,"Our take: A recipe for bad government," February 25, 2010
  39. ↑ The Panama City News Herald,"Planning nightmare," November 29, 2009
  40. ↑ Orlando Sentinel,"Wrong Rx for growth," October 4, 2009
  41. ↑ Gainesville Sun,"Growth by acclaim," July 23, 2010
  42. ↑ Florida Division of Elections,"Campaign Finance Database: Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc., PAC," retrieved August 20, 2010
  43. ↑ Florida Department of Elections,"Campaign Finance Database Activity for Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc.," retrieved August 20, 2010
  44. ↑ Florida Division of Elections,"Campaign Finance Database: Queried for 2010 contributions to Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc," retrieved August 20, 2010
  45. ↑ Florida Division of Elections,"Campaign Finance Database: Queried for 2010 contributions to Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc," retrieved August 20, 2010
  46. ↑ Florida Division of Elections,"Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Inc. (PAC)," retrieved August 20, 2010
  47. ↑ Florida Department of Elections,"Campaign Finance Database Activity for Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy," retrieved August 20, 2010
  48. ↑ Florida Division of Elections,"Campaign Finance Database: Queried for 2010 contributions to Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy," retrieved August 20, 2010
  49. ↑ The Florida Times-Union,"Florida Chamber files complaint against Hometown Democracy," July 22, 2010
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 The Palm Beach Post,"Hometown Democracy leader says she's sorry for 'step & fetch it' e-mail," June 7, 2010
  51. ↑ News-Journal,"Who intended to offend?," June 19, 2010
  52. ↑ The Washington Economics Group,"Statewide Press Conference Highlights WEG Study," January 26, 2010
  53. ↑ Orlando Sentinel,"Business lobby study: Hometown Democracy will cost Florida mega-jobs," January 26, 2010
  54. ↑ The South Florida Business Journal,"Study: Amendment 4 passage to cut jobs," January 27, 2010
  55. ↑ Florida Hometown Democracy,"Professor of Economics at the University of Central Florida and Chair ofthe College of Business’ Masters Program Rebuts Our Opponents’ FalseClaims About Amendment 4’s Economic Impact," retrieved August 20, 2010
  56. ↑ Nassau Analysis Group,"Review of WEG study," March 22, 2010
  57. ↑ The Washington Economics Group,"Response to UCF Professors," April 1, 2010
  58. ↑ Hank Fishkind June 30 -- Revisiting Hometown Democracy," June 30, 2010
  59. ↑ The St. Petersburg Times, "A Formula for Gridlock," June 28, 2009
  60. ↑ The Tampa Tribune,"Hurting towns and democracy," October 20, 2009
  61. ↑ St. Pete Beach and Amendment 4 (blog),"Kevin's Guide to Amendment 4," retrieved August 18, 2010
  62. ↑ Florida Hometown Democracy,"Hometown Democracy Success in Yankeetown Earns 'Citizen Planning Initiative' Award," July 14, 2010
  63. ↑ The Truth About Yankeetown Hometown Democracy
  64. ↑ St. Petersburg Times,"When developers and local officials get cozy, residents take control," December 25, 2007
  65. ↑ Leadership Florida,"The Leadership/Nielsen Company 2010 Sunshine State Survey," retrieved April 1, 2010
  66. ↑ The Daily Loaf,"New poll shows Hometown Democracy has majority support, but not enough to pass in November," April 1, 2010
  67. ↑ The Tampa Tribune,"Survey: Floridians concerned about jobs, want state to do more," March 31, 2010
  68. ↑ SaintPetersblog 2.0,"Going inside the Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll numbers on Florida’s cabinet races and constitutional amendments," May 13, 2010
  69. ↑ Campaign Finance Activity
  70. ↑ Ballot Access,"Florida Hometown Democracy Initiative Appears to Qualify, but Distribution Requirement Plus Signature Revocations Could Derail It," June 8, 2009
  71. ↑ The Associated Press,"Hometown ballot measure might lose signatures," June 8, 2009
  72. ↑ Miami Herald, "Fla. justices strike signature revocation law", June 17, 2009
  73. ↑ Associated Press,"Fla. justices explain last June's petition ruling," February 18, 2010
  74. ↑ The Jacksonville Observer,"Court: Petition Signatures Cannot Be Revoked," February 20, 2010
v • d • e
2010 ballot measures
I&R States
Non I&R States
Political topics
Other
Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Comprehensive_Land_Use_Plans,_Amendment_4_(2010)"
Personal tools