Guest Editorial: Amendment 4 Poses Threat to Florida's Economic Growth

Editor's Note: Having published guest editorials that were in favor of Amendment 4, I wanted to provide a counterpoint to the debate. Comments and emails from our readers suggest that a majority of them favor the proposed amendment that will be on the ballot this November. It would have been easy to play into those strong feelings by publishing an opposing view that only served to inflame or validate that position. There are plenty of blow-hards pontificating on the issue who have an obvious agenda to protect the very interests that have driven the cry for direct democracy, namely developers who have successfully subverted the intended process, by way of unbalanced influence through financial contributions. I feel we owe our readers more than that and set about finding a credible and thoughtful voice to express the legitimate opposition to an extremely complicated and far-reaching measure that, if passed, will have an unprecedented impact on the way governments in our state function. I found that in Jon Thaxton, a respected and experienced public official, and thank him for taking the time to offer his insight.

Guest Editorial: Jon Thaxton

A proposed amendment to Florida’s Constitution, Amendment 4, would require that all changes to Comprehensive Plans approved by local governments must also be approved by voters. Amendment 4’s unintended consequences pose a serious threat to Florida’s ability to secure high-paying jobs and achieve sustainable economic growth and will add layers of unnecessary, costly, and litigious bureaucracy to the planning process

While not all businesses relocating to Florida will need a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment, the perception alone of the state’s business climate plays a crucial role when smart, green and high-tech industries consider their relocation options. Amendment 4 all but throws a ”Not Welcome“ doormat at the state line. Florida already leads the nation in unemployment and related home foreclosures. By becoming the ONLY state in the nation to determine land use by voter referendum, Amendment 4 stymies Florida’s economic recovery and plunges the state into a deeper and prolonged economic decline.

Floridians have good reason to be concerned with planning decisions of the past. Serious mistakes have been made regarding the intensity, timing and location of new growth. Notwithstanding these missteps, Amendment 4 fails to offer a viable alternative and would ultimately make the process worse.

The pro-Amendment 4 website implies that over-development problems will no longer occur with the passage of Amendment 4. To the contrary, this Constitutional Amendment would make it more difficult for our communities to improve planning options that encourage smarter growth alternatives.

Amendment 4 supporters inaccurately portray Comp Plan amendments solely as a way to approve developments that lead to traffic congestion and environmental destruction, when in reality the vast majority of Comp Plan amendments have nothing at all to do with approving developments.

The author(s) of Amendment 4 missed the mark, and it’s too late to fix it now. Rather than dragging all Comp Plan amendments to the polls, Amendment 4 should have been limited to only those Plan amendments that deal with growth.

Yankeetown, a town of less than a thousand Floridians adopted by referendum a local version of Amendment 4. When it became unmanageable, the voters approved another referendum, this time to limit the Comp Plan amendments that would be subject to voter approval. If Amendment 4 proved too cumbersome for a town of 800, imagine how destructive it would be for a state of 18 million!

The vast majority of Comp Plan amendments deal with mundane management issues such as adjustments to capital improvement programs (the Yankeetown example), renumbering paragraphs, correcting demographic projections and complying with changes in state and federal regulations. They don’t attract emails or letters of concern, and nobody shows up at the numerous statutorily mandated public hearings. It is disingenuous and counterproductive to suggest that these same Comp Plan amendments should now mandate, at tax payer expense, a county-wide referendum.

Comp Plan amendments typically include many pages of explanatory text, charts, soil surveys and maps. It takes hours of reading to understand the complexities and reasons for most Plan amendments. It is unrealistic to think that a Comp Plan Amendment can be sufficiently explained within the mandated 75 word limit of a ballot referendum. And it’s unfair to expect voters to spend the many hours necessary to become familiar with the endless details of most Comp Plan amendments.

Extensive public participation in Comp Plan amendments is a requirement of state law today. Still, less than an estimated 3% of Florida’s voters have ever participated in any Comp Plan amendment. Amending the Constitution to force all Comp Plan amendments to the ballot will not enable public participation; it will force decisions on voters who heretofore had chosen not to participate.

I for one am tired of the state’s Constitution being treated like a Facebook page where changes are frequent and provoked by the cause of the day. Our founding fathers debated at length the pros and cons of a direct democracy versus a representative democracy. As evidenced in the pledge to our flag, a republic or representative form of government prevailed. While even in a republic democracy, there is a time and place for Ôdirect democracy’, it is clear that Amendment 4 is neither the time nor place.