I had to grapple with this myself in May while I was speaking in opposition to Amendment 4 during a debate in Dunedin. I was the third person to speak, and I could see from the faces of the audience that they did not see the difficulty of putting a 200 page comprehensive plan on the ballot in true, full compliance with Florida law. I needed a clear, simple way to convey to those folks that putting comp plans on the ballot is a hopeless task that subjects cities to crippling litigation.
So I showed them my Bible, and told them something that they already know: that the Bible is the ultimate comprehensive plan...a comprehensive guide on how to govern your life, your family, and your community. Then I said:
"Now imagine if you were forced to summarize your Bible in 75 words or less. Could you do it? If you are like me, you know it can't be done. But if you think you can do it 75 words or less, then write it down, and hand it to your neighbor, and you'll soon be having a passionate discussion about why your 75 words is better or worse than his 75 words."This is precisely the problem that we had in St. Pete Beach. Our comprehensive plan is the Bible for development and the preservation of the character of our city.
Like Amendment 4, St. Pete Beach's city charter requires all comprehensive plans and comprehensive plan amendments to be put on the ballot. And just like under Amendment 4, St. Pete Beach is required under Florida law to summarize its comprehensive plans and amendments in 75 word ballot summaries.
And when St. Pete Beach tried to put its comp plan on the ballot in 2008, Florida law forced the city to summarize the 115 page plan/changes in 75 words. When it tried to comply, the city was sued by a few residents who passionately alleged that the city's 75 words were deceptively misleading.
Two years, three lawsuits and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars later, the ballot language challenges created by St. Pete Beach's Amendment 4-style regulations are still being litigated, and the lawsuits are draining city funds that could be used to staff its police, fire and city public works departments, all of which (like all Florida cities) have been hit hard by the economic downturn.
The sad truth is that, contrary to what the Hometown Democracy folks are saying, lawsuits over ballot language is a costly legal expense that every Florida city will face when, like St. Pete Beach, they are forced to put their comp plans and comp plan changes on the ballot.
Putting a comprehensive plan on the ballot is like trying to condense the Bible into 75 words: it just shouldn't be done...and if you try, you are likely to have an ugly, costly fight over what's missing or wrong with your 75 words.
If you read this and think this is a lie, take a clear, hard look at St. Pete Beach, and you will see the truth.
If we can vote for president with a yes or no on a ballot, we should be capable of describing a land use amendment in 75 words or less.
ReplyDeleteResponse to George….
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that St Pete Beach was to be the poster child for Hometown Democracy with the citizens voting for changes to the Comprehensive Plans. The citizens of St Pete Beach did vote and voted in favor of allowing our Community to develop as a resort destination area... (unlike what happened to tourism on Treasure Island, FL).
After the citizens made their choice, the local Hometown Democracy crowd known as Citizens for Responsible Growth (CRG) has forced the City to spend $$$$ hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend their frivolous lawsuits aimed at overturning the citizens vote.
Because of the cost of these CRG based lawsuits, the City of St Pete Beach has been force to cut staffing and services. The defense of these lawsuits continues which forces the City to find new sources of revenue to pay for defending against these suits.
I suggest that George has no concept of the damage Amendment 4 will do towns, cities, and counties in the State of Florida. The only gains will found by the attorneys that will be paid to file and/or defend against similar lawsuit faced by St Pete Beach.
The only sane position for George and all of the citizens of Florida to take is to vote NO against Amendment 4.
Tony Cahill
St Pete Beach
Not according to City Manager Mike Bonfield. He told the St. Pete Times that most of St. Pete Beach's financial woes are the result of declining property values which, like most of the state, are thanks to overdevelopment. St Pete Beach property values have decreased more than 10 percent, and as a result, the town is taking in $385,000 less in property tax collections -- even with a higher tax rate. The tax rate increase, Bonfield said, is needed "to fund a variety of services we provide in the city." As well as a lawsuit over emergency medical services.
ReplyDeleteJill:
ReplyDeleteThanks for following and commenting! I'd love to see which quote you are referring to regarding Mike Bonfield...can you post the link? While I'm sure he has made comments about the impact of the decline in property values, I don't think it would be accurate to suggest that Bonfield is saying that the crippling legal expenses suffered by the city have not also had a significant impact.
The Times has also reported repeatedly that the City's $200,000 annual budget for litigation is nearly depleted. By comparison, the City's litigation expenditure for the year 2001 was only $33,000.
In fact, at a time when property values (and corresponding city tax revenues) are declining so dramatically, it seems to me that there could not be a worse time for Florida's cities to also be incurring significant litigation expenses such as those caused by St. Pete Beach's attempts to implement Amendment 4-style regulations.
Also, regarding your comment about presidential (vs. referendum) ballot items, there is of course a big difference between candidate races and referendum items on the ballot. For example, I'm not aware of any requirement under Florida law that candidates be described in a 75 word ballot summary...that is something that, of course, would be ridiculous. I would say the same about describing a 200 page comp plan in a 75 word ballot summary.
As I quoted one courtroom observer in a prior blogpost, even the Judge in the SPB litigation has questioned whether it is possible to successfully describe a comp plan in a 75 word ballot summary in a way that would not allow anyone to file a ballot challenge. To my knowledge, the plaintiffs in the St. Pete Beach litigation themselves have never put forth their own suggested version of a 75 word ballot summary, and they have been suing the city for years on this issue. If it is so easy to do, I sure would like to see someone try.
Thus, I'd have to disagree with a simple one-line comment that "we should be able" to describe a comp plan in a 75 word ballot summary, and yes, I'm saying (and saying and saying) that not only is this a real problem, it is a problem so serious that it alone is a compelling enough reason to oppose Amendment 4.
Thanks for your comments, Jill. I appreciate your thoughts.