Florida Hometown Democracy Land Use, Amendment 4 (2010)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Florida Hometown Democracy Land Use, 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][2]

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.[3] On June 17, 2009 the Florida Supreme Court tossed out a challenge and on June 22nd the Florida Division of Elections certified the amendment.[4]

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.[5]

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.[6]

Constitutional changes

Florida Constitution
Articles
Preamble • I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII

If Proposed Amendment 4 is approved on November 2, it will amend Section 7 of Article II of the Florida Constitution by adding this subsection:

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. 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 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. Notice and referendum will be as provided by general law. This amendment shall become effective immediately upon approval by the electors of Florida.

For purposes of this subsection:
1. “Local government” means a county or municipality.
2. “Local government comprehensive land use plan” means a plan to guide and control future land development in an area under the jurisdiction of a local government.
3. “Local planning agency” means the agency of a local government that is responsible for the preparation of a comprehensive land use plan and plan amendments after public notice and hearings and for making recommendations to the governing body of the local government regarding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive land use plan.
4. “Governing body” means the board of county commissioners of a county, the commission or council of a municipality, or the chief elected governing body of a county or municipality, however designated.

Background

Currently, county and city commissioners make comprehensive plan decisions 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.[7][8][9][10] According to reports, in fiscal year 2006-7, there were 6,406 amendments to local comprehensive plans.[11]

Support

The initiative is supported by a Political Action Committee (PAC) called Florida Hometown Democracy. Florida Hometown Democracy is primarilly funded by its founder 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

  • 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]

Donors

The initiative is supported by a Political Action Committee (PAC) called Florida Hometown Democracy. Florida Hometown Democracy is primarilly funded by its founder and president, Lesley Blackner, a Palm Beach attorney who has personally contributed more than $800,000 to place the measure on the ballot. [12]

Other major contributors to Florida Hometown Democracy include:

  • Joe Redner, owner of the Mons Venus Strip Club in Tampa. Redner has contributed more than $35,000 to the Amendment 4 campaign.[20]
  • Joyce Tarnow, executive director of Floridians for a Sustainable Population - a population control group[21]- has contributed heavily to the Amendment 4 campaign. Floridians for a Sustainable Population and Ms. Tarnow personally have contributed more than $20,000 to the Amendment 4 campaign.[22]

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.[23][24] Mark Wilson, President of the Florida Chamber of Commerce said, "If you like the recession, you’ll love Amendment 4.” [25]

A full list of opponents of the proposed measures, according to Vote No on 4 can be found here.

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 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."[26]
  • Florida Times-Union columnist Abel Harding has opposed Amendment 4, arguing that "In 2006, the small town of St. Pete Beach passed legislation similar to the Hometown Democracy initiative. The results have been ruinous. St. Pete Beach learned quickly that voter-approved comprehensive plan changes can be both cumbersome and expensive. After developers and community leaders launched a campaign to push through a new growth management plan that narrowed the city's version of its Hometown Democracy-style laws, St. Pete Beach was sued. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees later, development slowly returned....One can only imagine the cost to taxpayers that scores of additional ballot initiatives would create..."[27]
  • Largo city commissioners are opposed to the proposed amendment. According to the officials, the plan will "effectively halt development in the city while property owners, developers and the city wait for voters to have their say on amendments in elections."[28]
  • Ward Friszolowski, former Mayor of St. Pete Beach, a small town that adopted a local version of Amendment 4 in 2006, is opposed to the proposal because he believes that it will lead to special interest lawsuits and higher taxes. “Our experiment in Amendment 4 has turned St. Pete Beach into a battleground for special interests,”[29] said Friszolowski.
  • Frank Ortis, Mayor of Pembroke Pines, past President of the Florida League of Cities, and current member of the Executive Committee of the Florida AFL-CIO is against Amendment 4. "Amendment 4 will devastate Florida's economy by costing hundreds of thousands of jobs and driving the unemployment rate even higher. Worse still, Florida's working families and small businesses will bear the weight of this burden,"[30] said Ortis.
  • David Levy, Mayor of Palm Beach Gardens, a member of his local Sierra Club, and a former environmental specialist for the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation opposes Amendment 4 because he believes that it will harm Florida’s environment. "This ill-advised amendment has the potential to wreak havoc on Florida’s natural resources by encouraging sprawl, which will disrupt our unique quality of life," he said.[31]
  • Karl Nurse, a former Sierra Club Board Member and St. Petersburg City Councilman has argued that Amendment 4 "may encourage sprawl, which is harmful to our environment and costly for taxpayers. In the long run, it will make it much harder for local governments to set aside parklands, encourage energy-efficient building, promote smarter growth and preserve green spaces."[32]
  • Real estate attorney Bob Rhodes and former state growth administrator said, "I don't think it's going to accomplish its purported goals and I don't think it's going to produce better growth-management decisions."[33]
  • Safety Harbor City Commission adopted a resolution in February 2010 against the proposed amendment. According to the resolution, "local governments and their taxpayers will be obligated to fund elections for thousands of technical planning changes."[34]
  • Auburndale Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the proposed amendment. On February 24, according to reports, they said the measure would "impede progress on smarter grown policies aimed at improving citizen input; enabling public participation and engaging every community;" would pose a "threat to Florida's unique quality of life; the stability of its communities ;and the prosperity of its economy;" and would hinder local government efficiency and local businesses.[35]
  • Bay County commissioners voted to unanimously opposed the proposed amendment. According to the commissioners, the amendment could "prevent smart growth and stifle prosperity." Additionally, the commissioners argue that elections on each zoning and land use change may become very expensive for towns.[36]
  • Rev. Donald L. Roberts, president and chief executive of Goodwill Industries-Manasota Inc., said,"The founding fathers recognized that representative democracy mitigated the extremes of direct democracy, which Amendment 4 proponents advocate. Amendment 4 will seriously degrade job creation for those fine men and women in our state desperate for steady work and pay."[37]
  • Clifford Schulman, co-chair of the Environmental and Land Development Practice of the international law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLC, argues that while the state of Florida does need to manage growth, "that doesn’t mean no growth,” he said. “If something doesn’t grow, it dies and it atrophies." Amendment 4, he argues, will result in lost jobs and higher taxes because of the increase of cost in government.[16]
  • Stanley Price, chairman of the Land Use and Governmental Law Department at the Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod law firm, Amendment 4 will lead to delays thus creating higher costs for taxpayers. "This will add tremendous uncertainty and multi-year delays to important projects that would otherwise create jobs...While the existing amendment system within Florida needs to be modified, draconian measures such as Amendment 4 are clearly reckless and are not sound public policy. Vote NO on Amendment 4," said Price. He also acts as the co-chairman for Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy.[38]
  • Joyce Owens, president of the Southwest Florida chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said, "Amendment 4 is being presented with a warm and cozy feeling that democracy will prevail if all members of the community take control of community growth. The repercussions of putting decision making in the hands of the public, informed or otherwise, will throw into turmoil our delicate recovery. With the building industry hurting, Florida needs to be especially nimble and adaptable. As we struggle to get through this recession, adopting Amendment 4 would be just bad public policy."[39]
  • The Orlando Regional Realtor Association is opposed to the proposed amendment. ORRA chairman Kathleen Gallagher McIver said, "The bottom line is that ORRA is opposed to Amendment 4 because it will impede and even stop reasonable growth in our area. Amendment 4 would devastate not only the real estate industry but any future economic growth and the Florida economy as a whole."[40][41]

Donors

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.[42]

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.[43]

Policy analysis

Washington Economics Group study

The Washington Economics Group conducted an economic impact study on Amendment 4:

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. However, it is critical to realize that real estate development’s indirect and induced job creation process reaches deeply into all sectors of the Florida economy. This dramatically demonstrates the close supply inter-relationships that the Construction and Knowledge-Based Services sectors have with all of the other sectors of the Florida economy. An additional 72,247 jobs are endangered due to indirect economic effects (mostly suppliers). Lastly, induced spending effects of potentially foregone real estate development will endanger over 69,380 jobs in all sectors of the Florida economy. Therefore, the total number of jobs, directly, indirectly and induced, potentially endangered by the passage of Amendment 4 and the associated adverse impacts on real estate development in the Most Likely Scenario are estimated at 267,247 – a very significant potential reduction in Florida employment opportunities.[44]

St. Pete Beach test case

In 2006, the Florida town of St. Pete Beach adopted a local version of Amendment 4. [45]

The St. Petersburg Times reported that the town's local version of Amendment 4 had now resulted in more than $700,000 in legal fees.[46].

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

In 2006, my hometown of St. Pete Beach became the first community in Florida to adopt a local version of Amendment 4 requiring a vote on every proposed change to the town's comprehensive plan, no matter how small or technical. Since the measure was passed, the residents of St. Pete Beach have endured endless lawsuits and seen little progress. Even die-hard disciples of Amendment 4 have since converted back to common sense. 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.[47]

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."[48]

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."[49]
  • 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." [50]
  • 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."[51]
  • 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."[52]
  • 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."[53]
  • 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."[54]
  • 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."[55]
  • 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." [56]
  • 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." [57]

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

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. "[62]

  • 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.[7]
  • 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.[63]
  • 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."[64]

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.[65] 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."[66][67]

See also

 		Suggest a link

Related measures

"Not on ballot" icon Florida Referendum for Land Use (2008)

Articles

External links

Text and content

Additional reading

Editorials

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Financial Impact Estimating Conference,"Official Financial Information Statement"
  2. ↑ The Tampa Tribune,"2010 referendum on growth management developing," June 6,2009
  3. ↑ Examiner,'Ballot initiative: Florida voters to decide Constitutional Amendment on building and development," May 14, 2010
  4. ↑ The West Volusia Beacon,"Hometown Democracy referendum makes the ballot," June 26, 2009
  5. ↑ Florida Hometown Democracy FAQ
  6. ↑ Financial Impact Estimating Conference
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Palm Beach Post,"Anti-development 'Hometown Democracy' amendment has enough signatures for 2010 ballot, supporters say," June 8,2009
  8. ↑ St. Petersburg Times,"A look at the nine amendments on Florida's ballot," May 30, 2010
  9. ↑ NPR,"Florida Land Use Changes Could Be In Voters' Hands," May 31, 2010
  10. ↑ Florida Department of Community Affairs,"Growth Management and Comprehensive Planning"
  11. ↑ Florida Department of Community Affairs,"Florida Department of Community Affairs Sunset Review," Page 72
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Campaign Financing
  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. ↑ 16.0 16.1 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. ↑ Campaign Financial Reports
  21. ↑ Floridians for a Sustainable Population
  22. ↑ Campaign Financial Reports
  23. ↑ Highlands Today,"Hometown Democracy expected on 2010 ballot," June 9,2009
  24. ↑ VoteNOon4,"Florida AFL-CIO Votes to Oppose Amendment 4," July 22, 2010
  25. ↑ "Business Development Board","Amendment 4 likely to cost 267,247 Florida jobs, major economic study says" January 28,2010
  26. ↑ West Volusia Beacon,"Hometown Democracy debate sure to heat up," March 8, 2010
  27. ↑ [1]
  28. ↑ Largo Leader,"Largo officials opposed to Amendment 4,"February 7, 2010
  29. ↑ "Lakeland Chamber of Commerce","Amendment 4 Opens the Floodgates for Special Interest Lawsuits," May 6, 2010
  30. ↑ "Sun Sentinel","Frank Ortis (still) leading effort to stop proposed constitutional amendment,"April 6, 2010,
  31. ↑ "Business Development Board","Vote No on Amendment 4 Campaign Announces Palm Beach Co-Chairs,"April 1,2010
  32. ↑ [2]
  33. ↑ The Gainesville Sun,"Growth expert critical of Amendment 4 on November ballot," February 10, 2010
  34. ↑ St. Petersburg Times,"Safety Harbor opposes proposed land use amendment," February 18, 2010
  35. ↑ News Chief,"Auburndale Chamber board says it's against Amendment 4," February 25, 2010
  36. ↑ WJHG,"Bay County Urges "No" on Hometown Democracy," March 3, 2010
  37. ↑ Herald Tribune,"Vote no on Amendment 4," March 9, 2010
  38. ↑ The Miami Herald,"My view: Amendment 4 would invite state of economic chaos," April 12, 2010
  39. ↑ News-Press,"Amendment 4 will cripple the economy: Joyce Owens," April 28, 2010
  40. ↑ Winter Park/Maitland Observer,"Realtors oppose Amendment 4," June 10, 2010
  41. ↑ Seminole Voice,"Realtors oppose Amendment 4," June 18, 2010
  42. ↑ Sun Sentinel,"Business leaders, neighborhood activists clash over ballot issue on growth," June 9, 2010
  43. ↑ Citizens Videos
  44. ↑ The South Florida Business Journal
  45. ↑ The St. Petersburg Times, "A Formula for Gridlock," June 28, 2009
  46. ↑ Because of a local version of Amendment 4, The St. Petersburg Times, "the taxpayers of St. Pete Beach have had to pay hundreds of thousands in legal bills." March 10, 2010
  47. ↑ The Tampa Tribune,"Hurting towns and democracy," October 20, 2009
  48. ↑ St. Pete Beach and Amendment 4
  49. ↑ The Palm Beach Post,"One bad amendment enough: Focus on killing 'Hometown Democracy' sham," February 5, 2010
  50. ↑ Sun-Sentinel,"Initiative to give voters control over development makes it on the 2010 ballot," October 6, 2009
  51. ↑ St. Petersburg Times,"A formula for gridlock," June 28, 2009
  52. ↑ The Florida Times-Union,"Florida's growth: A better way," March 19, 2010
  53. ↑ The Tampa Tribune,"Voting On Everything Dispirits Tourist Business In Tourist Town," May 28, 2008
  54. ↑ Ponte Vedra Recorder,"Our take: A recipe for bad government," February 25, 2010
  55. ↑ The Panama City News Herald,"Planning nightmare," November 29, 2009
  56. ↑ Orlando Sentinel,"Wrong Rx for growth," October 4, 2009
  57. ↑ Gainesville Sun,"Growth by acclaim," July 23, 2010
  58. ↑ Leadership Florida,"The Leadership/Nielsen Company 2010 Sunshine State Survey," retrieved April 1, 2010
  59. ↑ The Daily Loaf,"New poll shows Hometown Democracy has majority support, but not enough to pass in November," April 1, 2010
  60. ↑ The Tampa Tribune,"Survey: Floridians concerned about jobs, want state to do more," March 31, 2010
  61. ↑ SaintPetersblog 2.0,"Going inside the Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll numbers on Florida’s cabinet races and constitutional amendments," May 13, 2010
  62. ↑ Campaign Finance Activity
  63. ↑ Ballot Access,"Florida Hometown Democracy Initiative Appears to Qualify, but Distribution Requirement Plus Signature Revocations Could Derail It," June 8, 2009
  64. ↑ The Associated Press,"Hometown ballot measure might lose signatures," June 8, 2009
  65. ↑ Miami Herald, "Fla. justices strike signature revocation law", June 17, 2009
  66. ↑ Associated Press,"Fla. justices explain last June's petition ruling," February 18, 2010
  67. ↑ 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_Hometown_Democracy_Land_Use,_Amendment_4_(2010)"
Personal tools