BlueBroward.org

For some time now, I have been assuming that I will wind up voting against the Hometown Democracy voter initiative, which will be on the ballot this November as Amendment 4. This is the one that would require major land use changes to be submitted to the voters for approval before they can go into effect.

I’ve heard the arguments against it at multiple business and chamber of commerce meetings and from friends who are public officials. Broward County Property Appraiser Lori Parrish is the only elected official I’ve heard speak in favor of it. After I posted a link to Carl Hiassen’s Miami Herald column in support of the measure to my Facebook page, County Commissioner Stacy Ritter gave me an earful about why this amendment was a bad idea.

I thought Hiassen’s perspective was interesting and amusing. Then again, I also enjoy the black comedy of his novels, which are largely built around finding creative ways to kill off venal developers and Chamber of Commerce types. He’s a thoughtful, environmentally minded guy, but I wasn’t sure whether to take his arguments seriously.

The argument against amendment 4 is basically this:

• It’s an overreaction by people upset about over development. Well intentioned, perhaps, but poorly conceived.
• Land use changes are too complicated and technical to be handled this way.
• For every land use change to go to a vote will be unwieldy, requiring very long ballots and expensive special elections.
• With the economy in such bad shape, cities need the flexibility to bring in business even if it means bending land use plans.

Last week, I heard the argument in favor in detail for the first time. Bett Willett, the South Florida coordinator for Hometown Democracy, gave a presentation to a Coffee Party gathering organized by my friend Ilene Singer.

Her points, in brief:

• Maybe this wouldn’t be required if public officials were responsive to their communities, but that’s not always true.
• Not every minor zoning ruling would have to go to a public vote, only those that require changing a community’s master land use plan.
• Those master land use plans are carefully considered and subject to public discussion, allowing for a mix of types of development in each community. There’s no reason to be in a hurry to change them. No special elections required – let these changes come up for a vote at the next regularly scheduled election.
• The voters wouldn’t be asked to approve every proposed land use change, only those that have already received the approval of local boards and commissions. If those representatives do their jobs right, there’s no reason these changes should not pass.

Right now, I’m not convinced either way. Bett’s presentation at least made me reconsider whether all the facts that had been presented to me by opponents of the measure were correct and honest.

I expect to hear at least one more presentation from the opponents of Amendment 4 before Election Day. One thing to at least consider is that the campaign against Amendment 4 will without a doubt be better funded. The developers and chambers of commerce are lined up against it. So that you can expect that virtually all the advertising you will see on this issue will be in opposition. That alone is a reason to treat those arguments with some skepticism.

The Hometown Democracy campaign is a grassroots one, and I have a weakness for popular movements. But that doesn’t automatically mean the initiative is good idea, either.

I’d like to see some good fact checking of the arguments for both sides. One analysis that seems to do a pretty good idea of weighing the arguments pro and con comes from an organization called the Collins Center, which you can see here: http://collinscenter.site-ym.com/page/1fFLAmAmend4_MS

The Florida League of Women Voters has its analysis of all the amendments here: http://www.lwvfla.org/pdf_files/FINALlwvPROCON.pdf

This issue is too important to be decided on the basis of your knee jerk reaction for or against development.