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.
Hi David -
Another consideration around this issue is the money that developers and possibly grassroots folks will spend on advertising to the voters prior to an election. Come election time, developers will promote their project and the land use change to the voters. There will be robo calls, radio and television spots and written pieces mailed out. It will cost developers more to move projects that require land use changes through the system. Will that cost be passed on to consumers or home buyers? If Amendment 4 passes, will the grassroots folks be organized and funded to educate the voters about the proposed projects or will voters only hear from developers? Will municipalities be involved in this in any way? If municipalities sponsor informative meetings (which they do with a land use change now) for the public prior to an election, will this be an additional cost for taxpayers?
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks -
Maggie Macaulay
Comment by maggie_macaulay@msn.com — September 5, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Excellent idea, David, to post on the subject of Amendment 4. I second exactly what Maggie says ’cause those have been my main concerns as well. As it stands now, even though Maurice Ferre wrote up a position paper in which he decided to support the amendment, I personally just don’t believe in direct democracy. I believe in representative democracy, and there has to be better ways to fix the problems we have with that.
Comment by Andrew Markoff — September 5, 2010 @ 11:41 am
These are valid concerns you raise. I used to cover small towns in Connecticut that still decided some things by Town Meeting, and the results weren’t necessarily better.
What sways me toward at least considering supporting this amendment is the idea that the measures that make it to the ballot will already have been filtered through the relevant planning boards. The arguments for and against ought to be fairly clear by that point, enough so that newspaper editorial boards and bloggers ought to be able to help us as voters sort through the issues. The public vote would merely serve as final check on the process, making it impossible to sneak a big change through in the middle of the night. Yes, developers could fund campaigns in favor of these changes and probably out-gun opponents in terms of ad dollars spent. But at least they would have to make the effort to convince the communities to be affected by a given change.
On the other hand, even if it does pass, this measure won’t prevent developers from getting approval on plans that fit with a community’s existing land use plan. So it may not put the brakes on development as much as some environmentalists and not in my backyard activists might like.
I haven’t actually made up my mind at this point and still want to make sure I get the facts straight before I decide how to vote. I will be interested to see if any more objective assessments emerge on the real practical, environmental and economic impacts if it should pass.
Comment by David F. Carr — September 5, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
The thoughts I put out were not meant as a criticism of Amendment 4. I like the concept. I am not convinced of the impact. Thanks for getting this discussion going, David.
Comment by maggie_macaulay@msn.com — September 5, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
Amendment 4 is a terrible idea…just ask the residents of St. Pete Beach! I’ve devoted an entire blog to show the reasons why St. Pete Beach is a perfect example of the flaws of Amendment 4.
Florida Amendment 4 may seem like a good idea to folks who are frustrated with sprawl and overdevelopment, but voting for it is like bringing a piece of furniture into your home that looks nice but is infested with bedbugs…it’s full of hidden dangers that can make your home and town unlivable and are very difficult to exterminate once in place.
Amendment 4′s biggest (and most hidden) flaw is that by requiring all comprehensive plan changes to go on the ballot, Florida election law requires that those comp plan changes (which often involve hundreds of pages of complex land use language) must be summarized in a ballot summary that is 75 words or less, which exposes cities to massive litigation costs due to ballot language challenges.
Why is trying to create a 75 word ballot summary of a comprehensive plan change such a problem? What’s the big deal?
The problem is that it is impossible to adequately summarize hundreds of pages of land use changes into a 75 word ballot summary, and if Florida’s cities are forced to undertake this impossible task, they will be vulnerable to costly lawsuits challenging those summaries as deceptive and incomplete…which is precisely what happened in St. Pete Beach.
In 2008, St. Pete Beach put proposed comprehensive plan changes on the ballot. We did this because in 2006, we made changes to our city charter which (like Amendment 4) required that future changes to our comprehensive plan must be approved by a vote of the citizens. So when we put our comprehensive plan changes on the ballot in 2008, Florida election law forced the city to summarize the 150 pages of changes into a 75 word ballot summary.
On Election Day, 2008, our comp plan was approved by the voters of St. Pete Beach by an overwhelming majority vote. Happy Day, right? Wrong! After the comp plan was approved by the voters, St. Pete Beach was promptly sued by a resident who alleged that the city’s 75 word ballot summaries were “rife with deceptive and misleading statements” and that they omitted “material facts.” Ironically, the plaintiff alleges that the city’s 75 words were deficient, but in his complaint he cannot even describe what is missing from the city’s ballot summaries in less than 75 words!
The litigation that started in 2008 is still ongoing, and in 2010 alone St. Pete Beach has incurred over $200,000 in legal fees defending the vote of the people. By comparison, St. Pete Beach spent only $33,000 on litigation in 2001. Similar problems threaten all Florida cities if Amendment 4 passes, since all Florida cities will also be forced to undertake the impossible task of crafting 75 word ballot summaries of comprehensive plan changes that involve hundreds of pages of complex land use changes.
The problem with summarizing comprehensive plans in 75 words under Amendment 4 is that you just can’t fit everything that everyone cares about into those 75 words. No matter how hard you try, there will always be someone who can file a lawsuit alleging that what is most important to THEM was left out, and that the ballot language was “misleading” or “deceptive” or “incomplete.” And like a swarm of bedbugs, land use lawyers thrive by feeding on these legal vulnerabilities…with all Floridians suffering for it.
So why will fixing the problems caused by Amendment 4 be as difficult as exterminating a house full of bedbugs? The reason is simple: Amendment 4 is a statewide constitutional amendment. Once Floridians figure out how overbroad and damaging Amendment 4 really is, local cities won’t have the legal authority to alter or modify the scope of Amendment 4′s rules to suit the needs and desires of the local population.
By comparison, once St. Pete Beach’s voters realized the mistake they’d made by adopting their Amendment 4-style rules, we repealed their broad scope in favor of a much more restricted set of rules…but we were able to fix our mistake because we had the power to undo the changes we’d made to our local city charter. But since Amendment 4 is a constitutional amendment, no Florida city will have the power to undo its requirements once it’s been approved, even if a majority of the city’s voters want to alter or repeal it.
I’ve got lot lots more info at http://www.stepetebeachandhometowndemocracy.blogspot.com
Oh, and I’m not a developer. I’m not a politician. I’ve never taken a dime from a developer. I am a democrat. I am a beach preservation activist. I’m none of the terrible things that Hometown Democracy operatives accuse folks who oppose Amendment 4. I’m just a resident of St. Pete Beach who doesn’t want the entire state of Florida to suffer what we suffered when we tried to implement Hometown Democracy-style rules.
Comment by Kevin — September 6, 2010 @ 8:52 am
David:
Also, I noticed in your blogpost that you mentioned that you had heard the arguments made by Bett Willett. I urge you to do a careful factcheck of everything that Ms. Willett says, because many of her “facts” are inaccurate at best. In particular, its likely that anything she said about St. Pete Beach is just plain wrong. I’d appreciate if if you would take a look at one of my recent blogposts where I explain in detail why virtually everything that Ms. Willet says about St. Pete Beach is completely wrong:
July 25, 2010
Hometown Democracy Throws Truth Under the Bus in Televised Amendment 4 Debate.
http://stpetebeachandhometowndemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/07/hometown-democracy-throws-truth-under.html
I agree with you that critical thinking is required when looking at Amendment 4. Unfortunately, in order to engage in effective critical thinking, you need to see the facts. I’ve been blogging about this since May, and the Hometown Democracy folks have never presented any facts that correct or rebut anything I’ve raised. Take a look at my findings, and take a look at Ms Willett’s responses…I think you’ll find the exchange very enlightening.
If you can convince Ms. Willett to answer my questions, I’d be very grateful to you, and you’d be doing the votes of Florida a great service. Unfortunately, all I’ve been able to get from them is personal attacks.
I invite you to contact me at my email address if you have any questions or would like additional information.
Comment by Kevin — September 6, 2010 @ 9:10 am
Thanks for your input, Kevin. I’m not ready to make a decision on this issue yet, but I’ll take time to review your posts before I do.
Comment by David F. Carr — September 8, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
Great, thanks! BTW, I respect you any anyone else who may decide to vote for Amendment 4, though I think its not a good idea for Florida. I just think its important for folks to know that, contrary to what is being said in the campaign, there are some very good reasons why A4 could cause serious problems, and folks should know the problems before they vote. It may be true that many folks still vote for Amendment 4 even if they are aware of the problems we have in St. Pete Beach, but the real problem I think is that most folks listening to the Hometown Democracy campaign aren’t told about the risks and downside to putting comp plans on the ballot. I fear that folks may vote for it, that it will pass, and then problems arise and folks say “hey, I didn’t know, nobody told me this would happen.” Again, that’s what happened in St. Pete Beach, and that’s why we repealed a big chunk of what we passed in 2006.
Comment by Kevin — September 9, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
The vast majority of development decisions are not on the scale of a comprehensive land use amendment, and they will go on as usual, under Amendment 4. The vast majority of development decisions will be unaffected by Amendment 4. But the wool that Amendment 4 opponents are trying to pull over our eyes is that local governments will come to a screeching halt over countless land use decisions that have to come for a vote. It ain’t so.
I have been on the Town of Davie Planning and Zoning Board and the Local Planning Agency for over four years. The vast majority of development applications we have considered are variances, vacations of easements, special permits, zoning changes, plats, and changes in local development codes. Rarely we consider applications for change, or amendment, of the Future Land Use Map, and revision of the Comprehensive Plan every 7 years. We also have a Site Plan Committee that considers applications for buildings including drainage, transportation, affordable housing units, mixed uses, esthetics, and protection of the rural life style. Again, no change under Amendment 4. Site plans will approved or denied, by the Site Plan Committee and the Town Council, and other changes by the Planning and Zoning Board and the Town Council, same as always, with no direct democracy. No vote of the people on any of these things, not even under Amendment 4.
When rarely we are asked to recommend approval or denial of a change in the Future Land Use Map, it then goes before our Town Council which makes the final decision. Only those comprehensive land use changes, including periodic revisions of the plan, will go to the voters under Amendment 4, and only if the Town Council votes to approve.
We already have direct democracy in some matters. We vote directly for charter amendments, bond issues, special sales taxes, and other long-term changes in the way our government and community grow. Comprehensive land use amendments are large, long-term changes in the community. Comprehensive land use changes are bigger because once a landowner has higher development rights, they cannot be taken back. Some say, “You elected your Commissioners to make these decisions, so if you do not like how they voted, you unelect them.” Right, we did that, but we can’t take back their bad votes. A bad vote to deny a land use change gives the owner and the community a chance to do it over some time in the future. But a bad vote to approve a land use change cannot be taken back. There should be much more community involvement in these irrevocable decisions which are currently sometimes made in back rooms by pay-to-play lobbyists, bogus 527 committees, and payments to elected officials.
Amendment 4 is a tiny extra slice of direct democracy. For a state like Florida with the most public corruption of elected officials, much of it over land use votes, and a state hit almost the worst of any state by bloated overdevelopment, real estate speculation, and the greed that crashed our economy and caused the Mother of all Recessions, Amendment 4 is a necessary and sensible improvement over what we have been doing.
Tell those who oppose Amendment 4 that they are either badly misguided or don’t want you to know the whole story.
Comment by Philip Busey — September 12, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
I only pose the following question in very simple terms:
What is Florida doing to attract new business to our state that will help raise employment and our ever shrinking tax base?
Is the answer to that proposing legislation that will slow the development process? If a Fortune 500 company is considering relocating to the Southeast – which state will be more appealing to that company? Will it be the state that offers an outline of a development schedule that defines the current process for approvals with the final time line left blank becasue it will be unreasonable to assume that you could count on a statewide vote for any lobbied new business development. This is an absolutely prehistoric process that will paralyze our ability to attract new business to this State. This is what happens when two wealthy attorneys, Lesley Blackner and Ross Burnaman, decide that they have made theirs and tough for the rest of us.
Comment by Robert — September 15, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
Here is the link to the State of Florida’s Official webpage regarding Amendment 4 on November’s ballot:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initdetail.asp?account=37681&seqnum=2
If you then click on the link, which says “Financial Information”, you will find that the State cannot confirm the actual cost of this Amendment to the taxpayers in Florida. It, more specifically, contradicts the points raised above by Phillip Busey. It states, between 2001-2005, there averaged over 1,000 instances per year where a vote would be required. It further states, that there is no significant increase or decrease to the amount of applications expected. Therefore, the researchers for the State feel that it is likely that special elections WILL be needed. It goes on to state that the cost of these special elections can exceed $2.4 Million. Don’t take my word for it; go to the link. It is all there in black and white from an unbiased source.
At $2.4 Million per special election, there only way to recover the cost is: 1) raise taxes or 2) make the developer pay for it. If you were a business owner and had to pay an additional $2.4 Million for a special election, not to mention the advertising costs required to campaign for your project just to move a company to Florida would you?
I have been following several articles and blogs on this topic. Most of the Proponents are stating that developers are using misleading facts and scare tactics. However, the Amendment wording itself is misleading: “Public participation in local government comprehensive land use planning benefits the conservation and protection of Florida’s natural resources and scenic beauty”. The comments I have found in the blogs talk about residents upset with developers knocking down older buildings and building high rises in their neighborhoods. No one is discussing preserving the environment.
I agree the current system needs help, but the ability for Florida to pull out of this recession and the future strength of its overall economy should not have to suffer. Amendment 4 is NOT the answer!
Comment by Evan — September 28, 2010 @ 9:59 am
Dear David,
I highly respect your welcoming of both sides of the important issue facing Florida. This site contains some of the most intelligent and thoughful discussion I have yet seen. I will try my best to contribute in that vein.
My reply to Phillip Busey on his comment: “The vast majority of development decisions are not on the scale of a comprehensive land use amendment, and they will go on as usual, under Amendment 4. The vast majority of development decisions will be unaffected by Amendment 4.”
I challange the accuracy of your statements. I understand you are speaking from your personal experience in Davie, FL about the infrequency of land use changes in that town. However, from my experience, land use changes and comprensive changes in City downtowns and coastal areas are more frequent where density is greater, land is scarce and planning more intensive.
And, you don’t seem to acocunt for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) by the municipalities that are could be subject to land use changes and comprehensive plan changes. Amendment 4 will trigger these projects to be on the ballots as well (that’s how it is written). These CIPs vital to the community can include things like: schools, hospitals, parks, roads, police stations and emergency operations centers, among others. And many of these projects can be small in scale, such as a road widening or addition of a traffic light.
My point is: If a municipality, whose job the public good, determines that a project is critical to their community, should they really be required to: 1) Campaign to the public, 2) Pay the advertising and legal costs involved, 3) wait for the public vote, 4) costs to administer the ballot process, 5) defend its results, all before starting the project? All of this will lead to delays of services, higher construction costs and additional taxes to cover the city’s costs.
And, this whole process hamper the City’s ability to handle emergencies when building/rebuilding/maintenance is critical to safety and service. St. Pete Beach greatly suffered from this as they were unable to get even their own public projects approved in a reasonable time frame.
In academia, environmentalists push for mixed use projects, composed of living, retail and commercial elements all in one building to try to limit development and environmental impact. Due to their complexity, a large portion of these projects would likely require land use changes. However, if Amendment 4 is implemented, Developers will be less likely to propose these projects due to the high risks disapproval. The whims of the people could be as shortsided and uniformed as “we don’t need another Publix,” rather than consider the overall benefit to community.
Another logistical problem is that the Amendment requires voting to be by county, which is absurd. This means that the people of Ft. Lauderdale would vote on matters in Cooper City, and vice versa. Or Miramir with Deerfield Beach, etc… Should the residents of a county’s largest cities have the predominant say over what decisions are made in a small suburb of that City? I know personally many “east siders” of Ft. Lauderdale never even set foot in most of the western part of the county. It simply doesn’t make sense for them to vote on places they have never been and don’t really affect them.
I recommend reading the “financial impact” statement that is part of the Amendment 4 ballot. It acknowledges that the costs to cities could be in the millions of dollars or more.
These costs, as well as the certain delay and potential rejection of sound development / construction projects will have great impacts on not only that industry, but also the greater retail / hospitality / service industries, which are directly related as well.
As Floridians, our standard of living is dependent in some way to the success of industries.
With State unemployment at 11%, and little sign of a recovery, Amendment 4 is a risk Florida cannot take.
Just VOTE NO on 4!
Comment by Steve — September 29, 2010 @ 11:32 am
About St. Pete Beach, the current mayor is for Amendment 4, see: http://stpetebeachtruth.blogspot.com/ for the truth told by an ex commissioner. If St. Pete Beach had had Amendment 4 they would have had no problems.
Sometimes, when the political system gets out of touch, citizens need to step in to restore proper balance.
Amendment 4 on the November 2nd ballot gives you, the voter, at last, a chance to vote on proposed changes in land-use plans in your city.
Here’s how it works. After the city and, in Broward, the county, approve a change to the comprehensive land use plan, and the final approval is granted by the city, it then goes to the voters – in the city of the land use change.
That’s it. If you agree with the commission’s decision, vote for it. If not, vote it down.
No special elections are required; it will not cost anything extra. Let me repeat that, NO special elections, no extra cost.
As to the number of items on the ballot… Our vote will follow the commission votes, one vote by the commission, then one vote by the voters, numbers that are very manageable.
There is a misconception fed by lies told by the Amendment 4 opposition that we will have to vote on hundreds of technical items, that is ridiculous.
The bottom line is, it is like when you vote on a bond issue to add a park, where every detail about what the bond money will be used for is in the backup, but the voters vote yes or no for the whole thing in one vote.
We don’t vote for every swing set or water fountain. That will be the same with the land use change vote, do you want to change the golf course to allow a housing de-velopment or not. Yes or no. One vote.
You will only vote when politicians and developers decide to change farmland to apartments, turn part of a residential area into a commercial zone, or turn a golf course into condos.
To maintain the quality of life in our city we deserve a vote.
We have been stuck with higher taxes, declining quality of life and increased traffic congestion and water rationing because of the overbuilding.
We should have a vote before we have to pay for the services and infrastructure for even more development.
Strangely, even some politicians think adding houses and condos to a city adds tax money to the city coffers, but that is completely false.
Residential development costs from $1.40 to well over $2.00 for every ONE dollar it generates in taxes.
Check the web site about St. Pete Beach you will see that the scare tactics the people who are against Amendment 4 are using, are just that, scare tactics with no basis in truth.
With Amendment 4 not only will there be no jobs lost, but our politicians will have to look at each proposed development to make sure it is good for the quality of life and the economy of the city. That it is something good for the residents.
Amendment 4 offers the only solution we have to change the status quo as better control of development will encourage a stronger, more diversified economy based on permanent, high paying, and productive jobs.
The bottom line is, that we deserve a “seat at the table” on land use decisions in our towns. These decisions directly affect our lives, our homes and our community, we deserve a vote!
Think of it this way: At the table where major projects that could raise your taxes are discussed and approved, you, the voter, are not welcome. That table has a “Re-served” sign on it for politicians, lobbyists and land speculators only.
We’re the ones who pay our tax dollars to extend the services like schools, hospitals, police, fire, water, sewer and roads to all these new developments. We should get a vote before we’re forced to pay.
The New York Times thought the overdevelopment disgrace in Florida was impor-tant enough for a front page story, they said: “Even now, with about 300,000 resi-dential units sitting empty around the state, the push to build continues.”
Florida cannot afford to continue the boom then bust pattern of the past. Ask yourself: Why are they so terrified of citizen oversight?
Amend-ment 4 will give us the chance to have a vote about development in our communities to ensure that planned and thoughtful growth happens.
Comment by Bett Willett — October 14, 2010 @ 11:50 pm
I can’t imagine a more anti-business referrendum out there than Amendment 4.
If Florida really wants to save our future, we should continue to welcome new modern businesses to our state for future generations. The key to welcoming new businesses is to allow flexibility in land use planning so that old building types, such as factories and land fills can evolve and get replaced with museums, parks, office buildings, schools or universities. Otherwise these old buildings and existing sites will continue to get neglected and become undesirable eyesores. If that occurs, our state will decline and will not be able to compete with other states.
Comment by Steve — October 20, 2010 @ 9:21 am
I’ve been going back and forth on this one but may ultimately vote no.
Comment by David F. Carr — October 20, 2010 @ 9:25 am
Bett,
In case you were not aware, developers pay for all impact fees which cover the local government’s costs for utility and infrastructure costs for adding those developments.
Recent increases in taxes have occurred not only in Florida, but throughout the country not because of development, but because of a variety of factors including, irresponsible lending and borrowing, investing in derivatives and other high risk investment programs, credit card debt, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, over-dependence upon China and many other factors. To pin higher taxes solely on developers, as you claim is completely preposterous. Haven’t you watched the news or read the papers recently?
Amendment 4 will increase taxes for our communities to cover the costs of special elections, longer ballots, legal costs involved with campaigning for and defending election decisions and costs for Cities to market their own public projects such as schools, community centers, hospitals and many others important to our communities. That’s what happened in St. Pete Beach and that is what will happen across the state.
Smaller communities in Broward, such as Cooper City, Deerfield Beach, Lauderdale Lakes and Lighthouse Point will NOT get their seat at the table as you state. Since Broward is a charter county, the ENTIRE COUNTY will vote on every gas station and school in the county, no matter the location. Smaller communities like the ones I mentioned, will no longer keep decisions among their citizens and commissioners. They will cede the decisions to the much larger cities, such as Ft. Lauderdale, Hollywood and Pembroke Pines, all with over 150,000 people, which make the lion’s share of the decisions because they have far more people and will be voting on matters in your small town.
Does that make sense?
Not at all. But that’s how Amendment 4 would affect Broward and other Charter Counties throughout the state.
Amendment 4 is well meaning, and “sounds good”. But in application, it will only lead to haphazard planning, chaos at the polls and in our communities, will RAISE taxes, and cripple the economy even further.
Vote NO on 4.
Comment by Steve — October 20, 2010 @ 9:39 am
David,
Awesome job!
Like I said from the outset, you seemed to think “long and hard” on this one. It’s just too crazy for Florida, especially not now.
Your voice should ultimately help lead to the defeat of this over-reaching amendment!
Sincerly,
Steve
Comment by Steve — October 20, 2010 @ 9:41 am