Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Florida Amendment 4, Comprehensive Land Use Plan Referenda Initiative (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Florida Amendment 4

Flag of Florida.png

Election date

November 2, 2010

Topic
Ballot measure process and County and municipal governance
Status

DefeatedDefeated

Type
Initiated constitutional amendment 		Origin

Citizens


Florida Amendment 4 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in Florida on November 2, 2010. It was defeated.

A “yes” vote supported requiring that local governments hold a referendum to change or adopt a comprehensive land use plan.

A “no” vote opposed requiring that local governments hold a referendum to change or adopt a comprehensive land use plan.


Election results

Florida Amendment 4

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 1,682,177 32.94%

Defeated No

3,424,204 67.06%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Amendment 4 was as follows:

“

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.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.


Constitutional changes

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

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.[1]


Support

The initiative was sponsored and funded by a Political Action Committee (PAC) called Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc. Florida Hometown Democracy was primarily funded by its author and president, Lesley Blackner, a Palm Beach attorney.[2] "Mismanaged growth destroys communities," said Blackner.[3]

Supporters argued that Amendment 4 would have simply added "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."[4]

YesOn4(FL).jpg

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."[5]
  • 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."[6]
  • 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."[7]
  • 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.[8]
  • In response to the opposition Lesley Blackner, president of Florida Hometown Democracy, wrote in a March 12 editorial that Amendment 4 would 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."[9]
  • Martin County Commissioner Sarah Heard endorsed Amendment 4 in April 2010 during a Martin County rally.[10]

Opposition

Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy was the main organization that led the effort in opposition to Amendment 4. More than 280 statewide business and labor organizations opposed the proposed measure. Opponents included the Florida Chamber of Commerce (dead link) and the Florida AFL-CIO. These groups said that Amendment 4 would have made Florida’s recession permanent by increasing taxes and contributing to unemployment.[11][12] Mark Wilson, President of the Florida Chamber of Commerce said, "If you like the recession, you’ll love Amendment 4."[13]

NoOn4(FL).jpg

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."[14]

Arguments

See also: Florida Amendment 4 (2010), opposition, arguments
  • In response to the initiative, some Floridians started a campaign, Floridians for Smarter Growth. The group proposed a different take on the proposed Smarter Growth Land Use Initiative; to require voter approval of changes to local land-use plans only if 10 percent of local voters signed a petition calling for the referendum.[3] 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, served as the executive director of the new group. Houck argued that the proposed measure may have cost the state $4 billion in lost "economic opportunities."[15]
  • The National Federation of Independent Business, Florida opposed 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."[16]
  • The Coalition for Property Rights (dead link) opposed 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."[17]
  • The Florida Farm Bureau opposed 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."[18]
  • The Florida American Institute of Architects opposed 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."[19]
  • 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."[20]
  • South Pasadena Mayor Kathleen Peters was opposed to the proposed measure. On September 16 said if passed the proposed amendment would have led to litigation and delays in city and county business. "It’s not going to work," she said.[21]

Media editorial positions

Main article: Endorsements of Florida ballot measures, 2010

Opposition

  • The Palm Beach Post was 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."[22] The board reiterated their opposition on October 1, "It sounds good: With political corruption rampant, put the people in charge of development. But the amendment is overreaching and dangerously vague."[23]
  • 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."[24]
  • The St. Petersburg Times was 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."[25]
  • The Florida Times-Union was 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."[26]
  • 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."[27] The board reiterated their opposition in an October 2 editorial, "Having to vote on every land-use change would slow down economic growth without guaranteeing neighborhoods any real protection from the encroachments they fear most."[28]
  • The Ponte Vedra Recorder was 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."[29]
  • The Panama City News Herald was 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."[30]
  • The Orlando Sentinel was 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."[31] In a 2010 editorial, the board said, "Floridians shouldn't fall for costly, unwieldy, unneeded Hometown Democracy. Vote no on Amendment4."[32]
  • The Gainesville Sun was 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."[33]
  • The Bradenton Herald opposed the proposed measure. The editorial board said, "This backlash to Florida’s checkered history on growth management swings the pendulum too far. The threat to the state’s economy and recovery is too great. We recommend a no vote on Amendment 4."[34]
  • The Pensacola News Journal opposed Amendment 4. In an editorial, the board said, "While opponents have gone overboard in painting horror stories of what might happen, we agree that this is exactly the sort of thing representative government is supposed to handle. We elect officials to make these decisions."[35]
  • The Northwest Daily News was opposed to the proposed measure. "It would kill growth by killing development. And by killing development, it would kill jobs. If there’s one thing Florida doesn’t need as it tries to climb out of a deep, ugly recession, it’s a constitutional mandate that will strangle development and jobs," said the editorial board.[36]
  • The Daytona Beach News-Journal was opposed to Amendment 4. "Florida's current growth-management system is by no means perfect, but it's far superior to the uncertainty and confusion of "direct democracy." That uncertainty and confusion would discourage investment and make the state's road to the economic recovery even longer. Vote "no" on Amendment 4," said the editorial board.[37]
  • The (Panama City) News Herald was opposed to Amendment 4. "Amendment 4 isn’t just bad policy that would be enshrined in the state constitution (and thus difficult to reverse). It would undermine our representative democracy. The public elects city and county commissioners to study land-use plans, working with professional staff to understand the pros and cons of proposals and make a decision. The public already has input on these discussions...The public doesn’t need additional power to effect growth. It just needs to exercise the one it already has. Vote "no" on Amendment 4," said the editorial board.[38][39]
  • The Orlando Sentinel was opposed. "It's a loopy idea on several levels. How many voters are going to plow through stacks and stacks of documents to determine if a change really has merit? Instead, both backers and opponents of plan changes will mount obnoxious and misleading political campaigns. If you think voting on constitutional amendments is confusing, just wait until you see what's in store if this one passes," said the editorial board.[40]
  • Florida Today said, "What needs to happen is for lawmakers from both parties to work together with developers and smart growth advocates to find reasonable ways to streamline duplicative regulations, while maintaining safeguards to control development. Voters tempted to approve Hometown Democracy as retaliation for failed past policies on growth should resist and do this instead: Demand lawmakers enact sensible growth management rules that protect Florida and its citizens from developers’ greed gone wild and vote those who won’t out of office."[41]
  • The Naples Daily News said, "This amendment would subject major projects, and even some modest projects, calling for comprehensive plan changes to referendums in cities and counties rather than votes of city councils and county commissions. The timing is awkward. There is little development to police these days."[42]
  • Creative Loafing's Irreverent View said, "Irreverent View strongly recommends a “No” vote on Amendment 4. This draconian measure to control development would severely cripple the state’s economy if passed. Note to developers: get your act together if you want to avoid more ridiculous proposals like Amendment 4."[43]
  • The Ledger said, "While we empathize with proponents of Amendment 4, we recognize that proposal is impractical and that the voters - theoretically, at least - hold the solution through the election process. The Ledger recommends a No vote on Amendment 4."[44]

Aftermath

2011 legislative bill

In 2011 the Florida State Senate proposed a legislative bill, SB 1122. The bill, according to reports, would move the review and regulation of development from the state level to local governments. Additionally, the bill prohibits local communities from requiring a local referendum on changes to comprehensive land-use plans. The proposed ban on local votes, is a direct response to 2010's Amendment 4 which proposed requiring a taxpayer-funded referendum for all changes to local government comprehensive land-use plans.[45]

The full text of the proposed bill can be found here.

Campaign disclosure hearing

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Florida ballot measures

On July 28, 2011 Federal Judge Robert Hinkle heard arguments on a campaign disclosure case related to Amendment 4. Specifically the case decided whether small groups of citizens that group together to campaign for or against a measure must submit campaign disclosure forms.[46]

Specifically, the case referred to a group of four Sarasota residents that joined in donating and raising funds in favor of Amendment 4. However, according to reports, the group did not believe it was necessary to form a political action committee and submit campaign disclosure forms.[47]

According to state law, any group of two or more people that wants to spend $500 or more on a campaign must file campaign finance reports.[46]

The lawsuit was filed by a group of Sarasota and Charlotte County residents - Andrew Worley, Pat Wayman, John Scolaro and Robin Stublen - and are represented by Paul Sherman, an Institute for Justice attorney.[47]

Sherman argued that the state law for small groups was burdensome. "If they want to speak out on an issue they face a choice -- either speak out as a heavily regulated (political action committee) or not at all. That choice is unconstitutional," he said.[46]

In defending the state, Florida Department of State assistant general counsel Ashley Davis said that it was in the "public’s interest to know who is attempting to influence elections." Additionally, Davis noted that the requirements were minimal and did not impose limitations on the amount of money that could be raised.[46]

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Florida

The ballot measure was an initiated constitutional amendment. Proponents collected signatures to place the initiative on the ballot.

See also

2010 Measures

Florida

News and analysis


External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source.
  2. ↑ St. Petersburg Times, "Lesley Blackner Staying Put," February 25, 2008
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Florida
  4. ↑ Florida Hometown Democracy, "Main Page," accessed March 11, 2010
  5. ↑ The Florida Times-Union, "Floridians need more say in development decisions," May 21,2009
  6. ↑ WUSF, "Hometown Democracy" Pros, Cons Debated," February 19, 2010
  7. ↑ Naples Daily News, "Proponents, opponents of Hometown Democracy lay out pros, cons of amendment," March 9, 2010
  8. ↑ Bradenton, "Biz group urged to fight against Amendment 4," March 11, 2010
  9. ↑ Herald Tribune, "Amendment 4 for livability," March 12, 2010
  10. ↑ TCPalm, "Heard endorses Amendment 4 on land use changes at Martin County rally," April 13, 2010
  11. ↑ Highlands Today, "Hometown Democracy expected on 2010 ballot," June 9,2009 (dead link)
  12. ↑ VoteNOon4, "Florida AFL-CIO Votes to Oppose Amendment 4," July 22, 2010
  13. ↑ "Business Development Board,""Amendment 4 likely to cost 267,247 Florida jobs, major economic study says" January 28,2010
  14. ↑ Vote No on 4, "Amendment 4 opens the floodgates for special interest lawsuits," April 30, 2010
  15. ↑ West Volusia Beacon, "Hometown Democracy debate sure to heat up," March 8, 2010
  16. ↑ National Federation of Independent Business, "What would Amendment 4 do to Florida?" accessed August 24, 2010
  17. ↑ The Coalition for Property Rights, "The Hometown Democracy Amendment," accessed August 24, 2010
  18. ↑ Florida Farm Bureau, "Amendment 4: What every Floridian should know
," July 23, 2010
  19. ↑ AIA Florida, "Amendment 4 - 2010 Ballot," accessed August 24, 2010
  20. ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "Florida AFL-CIO opposing Amendment 4," July 23, 2010
  21. ↑ Seminole Beacon, "South Pasadena mayor opposes Amendment 4," September 21, 2010
  22. ↑ The Palm Beach Post, "One bad amendment enough: Focus on killing 'Hometown Democracy' sham," February 5, 2010
  23. ↑ The Palm Beach Post, "Endorsement: No on Amendment 4: Reject Hometown Democracy," October 1, 2010
  24. ↑ Sun-Sentinel, "Initiative to give voters control over development makes it on the 2010 ballot," October 6, 2009
  25. ↑ St. Petersburg Times, "A formula for gridlock," June 28, 2009
  26. ↑ The Florida Times-Union, "Florida's growth: A better way," March 19, 2010
  27. ↑ The Tampa Tribune, "Voting On Everything Dispirits Tourist Business In Tourist Town," May 28, 2008 (dead link)
  28. ↑ The Tampa Tribune, "A power you should not want," October 2, 2010 (dead link)
  29. ↑ Ponte Vedra Recorder, "Our take: A recipe for bad government," February 25, 2010 (dead link)
  30. ↑ The Panama City News Herald, "Planning nightmare," November 29, 2009
  31. ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "Wrong Rx for growth," October 4, 2009
  32. ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "What we think: No on Amendment 4," October 8, 2010
  33. ↑ Gainesville Sun, "Growth by acclaim," July 23, 2010
  34. ↑ Bradenton Herald, "We recommend: on Amendment 4, a no vote BRADENTON HERALD EDITORIAL | Comp plan votes not answer to growth management," September 29, 2010
  35. ↑ Pensacola News Journal, "Editorial Board recommendations: The Amendments," October 9, 2010
  36. ↑ The Daily News, "EDITORIAL: Amendment review: No on No. 4," October 8, 2010 (dead link)
  37. ↑ The Daytona Beach News-Journal, "Amendment 4 would result in chaos," October 17, 2010
  38. ↑ The News Herald, "EDITORIAL: No on Amendment 4," October 17, 2010
  39. ↑ News Herald, "EDITORIAL: Assessing amendments," October 24, 2010
  40. ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "Our Endorsements: Amendments made simple," October 23, 2010
  41. ↑ Florida Today, "Our views: Vote 'no' on flawed Amendment 4 (Oct. 3)," October 3, 2010
  42. ↑ Naples Daily News, "Editorial: Election 2010 | Florida Ballot Amendments 1, 2 & 4," October 13, 2010
  43. ↑ Creative Loafing, "Irreverent View’s ballot recommendations," October 1, 2010
  44. ↑ The Ledger, "The Ledger Recommends - Constitutional Amendments: Campaigns, Tax Credit, Land Use," October 28, 2010
  45. ↑ St. Petersburg Times, "Florida Senate moves to put local governments, not state, in charge of growth management," April 15, 2011
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 Sunshine State News, "Federal Court Hears Arguments in Ballot Campaign Disclosure Case," July 28, 2011
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 The Miami Herald, "Suit targets campaign disclosure requirements for issue groups," July 27, 2011 (dead link)
v • e
2010 ballot measures
I&R States
Ballotbox.jpg
Non I&R States
Political topics
Other
Post-election
Flag of Florida
v • e
State of Florida
Tallahassee (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Florida_Amendment_4,_Comprehensive_Land_Use_Plan_Referenda_Initiative_(2010)&oldid=9521958"