St. Pete Beach Struggles with Yet Another Hometown Democracy-Style Ballot Problem - Part 2

This is Part 2 of the 2-part blogpost.  Click Here to see St. Pete Beach Struggles With Hometown Democracy-Style Ballot Problems - Part 1


Supporters of Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4 who read Part One of this blogpost may be tempted to argue that St. Pete Beach's problem is distinguishable from Amendment 4 because St. Pete Beach's ordinance did not require that the referendum vote occur after DCA and city commission approval of the comprehensive plan.  They may be tempted to argue that St. Pete Beach "ran into trouble" because they "violated Hometown Democracy" by holding the referendum election first, not after DCA approval.   In making these arguments, Amendment 4 supporters seem to also be arguing that St. Pete Beach's "timing" problems (i.e., situations where comprehensive plan referendums are held before DCA/city commission approval) could not and would not happen under Amendment 4.


Such arguments are clearly wrong.   The problem facing St. Pete Beach is similar (if not identical) to the problem that could face many other Florida cities if Amendment 4 passes because, in addition to its Amendment 4-style charter provision, St. Pete Beach (and many other Florida cities) also has a totally separate charter provision that provides that charter amendments may be put on the ballot by initiative and referendum petitions.  As set forth in his law review article entitled "Hometown Democracy -- the St. Pete Beach Experience", St. Pete Beach city attorney Michael Davis writes:

"Florida Statutes Section 166.031 allows ten percent of the registered voters at the last municipal election to place a charter amendment on the ballot.  Section 7.04 of the St. Pete Beach City Charter extends this ten-percent rule to initiative and referendum petitions.  Therefore, once sufficient signatures have been obtained, the measure must go on the ballot.  Moreover, these measures are often not drafted or reviewed by City officials; they are typically drafted by the citizens' group or political action committee proposing the initiative.  The City is nevertheless required to present the measures to the voters."

 Thus, the "problem" posed by St. Pete Beach's voter-initiated comprehensive plan arose from the conflict and fundamental incompatibility of two separate and independently valid provisions of the city's charter.  On the one hand, Florida Statute 166.031 (as extended by city charter provisions) requires that a voter-initiated comprehensive plan/amendment must go on the ballot at the next scheduled election if requisite ten percent of the voters sign petitions.  On the other hand, Amendment 4 would require such a comprehensive plan to go on the ballot only after DCA and city commission approval, which might occur long after the next regularly scheduled election.  The fundamental inconsistency and conflict between Amendment 4 and Florida Statute 166.031 is a problem that all Florida cities may face if, like St. Pete Beach, their city charters allow referendum petitions.

Furthermore, as was the case in St. Pete Beach, changes to a voter-initiated comprehensive plan could be ordered by the DCA after the plan had already been approved by the voters pursuant to F.S. 166.031, thus forcing the city commission, like St. Pete Beach, to either

1. put the comprehensive plan back on the ballot (and thus struggle with crafting adequate ballot language to describe why the same measure is being voted for a second time) or 
2. adopt the comprehensive plan without putting the measure on the ballot and face potential legal challenges (which is what happened in St. Pete Beach).

Supporters of Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4 are therefore wrong when they argue that St. Pete Beach "did not follow Hometown Democracy" and that "If we had Florida Hometown Democracy in St Pete Beach, we wouldn't have these problems."  These arguments fail to address the core weaknesses of Amendment 4-style regulations, i.e.:

1. The fundamental conflict between a) Florida Statute 166.031's requirement that referendum initiatives (including voter-initiated comprehensive plans) be put on the ballot at the next regularly held election and b) Amendment 4's requirement that comprehensive plan changes be put on the ballot after DCA and city commission approval, and
2. The fundamental difficulty in complying with Florida's statutory requirement that all ballot measures (including comprehensive plan amendments) be summarized in 75 words or less.

To their credit, at least some Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4 are beginning to recognize and acknowledge these fundamental inconsistencies, but I have not yet seen them offer any feasible solutions.  For example, during an Amendment 4 event in Dunedin on May 21, Amendment 4 supporter Chris Giuliana stated that he believed that if Amendment 4 passes, local governments should

"take out of your city charters provisions for initiatives in connection with land use plans.   That's the mischief that bothered [St. Pete Beach].  It is not really appropriate for us to initiate land use plan amendments, it is up to local governments to do it [and then] for us to say "I don't think that's a great idea."

It is commendable that Mr. Giuliana acknowledges the problem...he is the only Amendment 4 supporter to my knowledge who has done so.  Unfortunately, his suggested solution to the problem is fatally flawed because it violates the core principle of Hometown Democracy:  i.e., giving citizens the right to vote on land use changes.  Mr. Giuliana's solution to the problems posed by voter-initiated comprehensive plans and land use changes is to amend all city charters to deprive voters of their right to petition for a vote on such changes pursuant to Florida Statute 166.031.

Thus, in order to gain a right to vote on comprehensive plans under Amendment 4, supporters argue that it is necessary to deprive voters of the right vote on the same plans under the existing Florida Statute 166.031.

It seems to me that the "right to vote" on comprehensive plans under Amendment 4 can not be validly justified
by depriving Florida voters of their right to vote on such plans under an existing Florida statute.

All of this has been an issue in St. Pete Beach, which further evidences why Amendment 4 supporters are wrong to argue that St. Pete Beach has "absolutely nothing" to do with Amendment 4.