Amendment 4 Threatens to Undermine Beach Preservation Efforts in St. Pete Beach
Here's one reason why I blog about Amendment 4: I am a beach preservation activist, and Amendment 4 threatens to undermine the many hundreds of hours of effort I spend each year fighting to preserve and protect the beaches of St. Pete Beach, which are among Florida's most critically eroded beaches. How is this possible? Here's how:
As reported on WMNF FM radio on July 1, 2010, last Saturday (June 26th) the Beach Stewardship Committee of St. Pete Beach held its second annual Sea Oats Planting Event, and it was a resounding success: over 150 volunteers came to St. Pete Beach in the wee hours of the morning and worked together to plant 5,000 sea oats plants in the pristine, white, oil-free sands of Pass-a-Grille beach as part of the city's comprehensive beach preservation and erosion-control/prevention program. As the chairman of the Committee and an organizer of the event, I was pleased to see our efforts were so richly rewarded with strong volunteer support.
The sea oats we planted were provided by Pinellas County, and were funded by the Tourist Development Tax that is collected by the city's hotels, motels and B&Bs (commonly referred to as the "Bed Tax"). Sea oats are not the only critical beach preservation measure that is funded by Pinellas County's Bed Tax. St. Pete Beach's beach renourishment projects (where sand is pumped onto the beach from offshore to replenish critically eroded beaches), its temporary geotube erosion control structures, and the permanent erosion control structures scheduled for installation on Upham Beach in 2012 are all dependent upon the Pinellas County Bed Tax.
I have spent countless hours as a citizen activist and as a city committee member working to ensure that these critical beach preservation projects are approved and funded by Pinellas County and the Pinellas County Bed Tax. Yet when Robert Weintraub spoke on behalf of Hometown Democracy to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council on April 12, 2010 and was asked to comment on the devastating effect that St. Pete Beach's Hometown Democracy-style rules have had on the efforts of our city's hotels and tourist destinations to re-develop and remain commercially viable, his response was "Well, St. Pete Beach shouldn't be encouraging large hotels. It should be encouraging 2-story Bed & Breakfasts."
This remarkable, anti-tourism position is entirely consistent with the views expressed by the anti-development minority in St. Pete Beach, a few of whom have embroiled the city in numerous lawsuits that have cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. It seems that Mr. Weintraub (and Hometown Democracy) not only want to stop the hotels and resorts of St. Pete Beach from redeveloping to remain competitive, they want them to be replaced by smaller, lower-density B&Bs. But if that were to happen, tourist density (and corresponding Tourist Development Tax revenue) would suffer a steady and significant decline.
If Mr. Weintraub's view is the official position of the Amendment 4 campaign, this is a clear acknowledgment that Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4 would have a negative impact on the viability of Florida's tourist economy, which in turn would impact Pinellas County's Bed Tax revenue, which in turn will impact the funding that is available for sea oats, beach renourishment and beach stabilization projects that are so critical to the preservation of the beaches of St. Pete Beach and other beaches throughout Florida!
As a beach preservation activist, I have no choice...I have to blog about the flaws in Amendment 4, because if I don't, and if Amendment 4 passes, then I will have failed to do everything I can to ensure that the beaches of St. Pete Beach are protected and preserved.
Oh I get it it.. you want mega-room hotels with zillions of tourists to trample over the newly-planted sea oats so you can get the bed tax dollars to plant some more! There's logic in there somewhere - but it's the kind of logic that is trying to convince people that having the right to vote is somehow bad for them. What a concept to try and sell on our nation's birthday. There's got to be a better way to support beach renourishment than through increased density.
I agree that there SHOULD be a better way to support beach renourishment, but the truth is there isn't. St. Pete Beach is one of Florida's most critically eroded beaches, and beach renourishment costs though the year 2033 are projected to total $53 million. That's why I've been working so hard to support Pinellas County's plan to install permanent erosion control structures that will hold more sand on the beach and reduce those renourishment costs to $23 million. But a big chunk of the funding for that project must come from the Pinellas Bed Tax. My point is that Hometown Democracy not only seems to admit that Amendment 4 will reduce Bed Tax revenues, but that seems in a bizarre way to be one of its goals (i.e. reduce tourist density, which results in reduced bed taxes).
Oh, and our sea oats do just fine. St. Pete Beach has had a robust tourist economy since the 1920s. Its an integral part of our community. It's why we have all of the wonderful shops and restaurants and other amenities that make us the envy of so many other beach communities. This is a good thing, right?
It's only the anti-development minority, (the folks who file all the lawsuits) who are opposed to tourists and hotels, and who say the same sorts of things that Hometown Democracy is saying to the rest of Florida. How's that workin' for us here in St. Pete Beach? Not so good. It will be the same for everyone if Amendment 4 passes.
As for the logic of why voting on comp plans is bad for local communities and bad for Florida, well, I've laid those arguments out in other blogposts on this blog. I'd love it if we could have a real, detailed conversation about this, but all I ever hear is soundbites. My arguments are completely logical and are backed up by the events and litigation that has plagued St. Pete Beach.
I invite you or anyone from Hometown Democracy to subject my arguments to a logical, detailed analysis, support that analysis with verifiable facts, and then we'll be getting somewhere. You've never addressed my arguments that it is nearly impossible to put comp plans on the ballot, to summarize them in 75 word ballot summaries, without subjecting cities to the same crippling litigation costs that have been suffered by St. Pete Beach. You also don't deny or refute my points in this blogpost...i.e., that Amendment 4 threatens to reduce tourism and bed tax revenues, which in turn reduces funding for beach preservation. Emotionally-charged soundbites are fun, but can't we rise above that and have a serious, substantive discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of Amendment 4? Isn't that something you want? I know I do.
And YES, I DO support tourism, in part because it does provide funding for beach preservation. Again, tourism has a long history in St. Pete Beach. It is a vital part of our community and it needs to be able to maintain its viability. What is wrong with that?
Finally, and again, I agree with you that there SHOULD be a better way to support beach renourishment, just as I agree that offshore drilling should be banned entirely, etc etc. But since there is no other way to fund our beach preservation projects, I'm going to stay in the real world and do what I can to protect my beaches. If you have a practical, real-world alternative, I'd love to hear it!
Oh, and I do really mean this...thanks for commenting!
There is no such thing as no other way. What exists is the lack of political will to fund these renourishment projects some other way. Tourists have been coming to Florida for decades largely due to the fact that our beaches were mostly unspoiled. Why do you think our Gulf Coast tourism is slipping and tourisn in the Panhandle is increasing. They haven't killed the goose that lays the golden egg there yet. (The oil spill may do it for them, unfortunately.)
PS Hopefully, Amendment 4 will pass. Then people who live in St. Pete Beach will vote on those issues and will decide what they think is beneficial for their community and what is not. People shouldn't be forced to live with changes they feel are detrimental to their community just because someone says "if you want beach renourishment you have to do it this way, or else." Besides, if people agree that these changes are desireable and necessary, Amendment 4 also gives them the power to back their commissions proposed changes by approving them at the ballot box. And no, what you currently have in St. Pete beach is NOT Hometown Democracy.
Tourism in St. Pete Beach is suffering because the hotels need to be able to redevelop and upgrade in order to retain their viability and competitiveness as tourist destinations. Their ability to do so has been and is being impaired by our Amendment 4-style regulations. Weintraub admitted it to the TBRPC, and now you seem to as well.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you agreeing with Weintraub that St. Pete Beach's hotels should be replaced with 2-story B&Bs?
You acknowledge that tourism depends on our having robust, healthy beaches...and that's why beach preservation and renourishment funding is so critical.
Right now, it's the tourists who are paying the taxes for our beach renourishment through the Bed Tax. Yet you do not dispute my argument that Amendment 4 will impact tourism density and reduce Bed Tax revenues.
You say that there is a "lack of political will to fund these renourishment projects some other way", but if tourists don't pay for these projects, then isn't it true that the only remaining option is to tax Florida's residents? So why isn't this another example of why Amendment 4 will result in increased taxes on Florida's residents? Please explain!
I'm saying that the people in St Pete Beach should decide. Renourishing the beach isn't going to help them if living among towering hotels ruins the reason they want to live there in the first place. And, please, no matter how many times you say it, what you have in St. Pete Beach is NOT Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4.
Jill, Kevin runs this blog so he can argue with Amendment 4 supporters. There's only 3 of us reading this thing. Maybe it would be easier if Kevin just emailed you. He and his developer friends keep beating the St Pete Beach dead horse. They couldn't come up with any legitimate reason to oppose it so they put the St Pete Beach spin on it. Voters aren't that stupid, though. Voters deserve to vote on the future of their communities.
Kevin, don't worry, when Amendment 4 passes St Pete Beach residents will have it easier in trying to manage growth responsibly. I wonder what your next cause will be...maybe to erect a Developer's Museum in St Pete Beach, showing how high the hotels have gotten over time...yeah, that might attract developers to vacation in St Pete Beach.
"Hopefully, Amendment 4 will pass. Then people who live in St. Pete Beach will vote on those issues and will decide what they think is beneficial for their community and what is not."
and
"I'm saying that the people in St Pete Beach should decide. Renourishing the beach isn't going to help them if living among towering hotels ruins the reason they want to live there in the first place."
You don't seem to be reading or comprehending what I've been saying. The people of St. Pete Beach HAVE decided...we voted to repeal most of the Amendment 4-style rules we adopted, and soon we will have repealed all of them completely. The people of St. Pete Beach have voted to restore to our elected officials (you know, the ones you distrust so much) the power to make decisions about comprehensive plans and comp plan changes.
That's what the people of St. Pete Beach want, and we should know, because we are the only ones in Florida who have tried to put our comp plans on the ballot.
Also, you said:
"And, please, no matter how many times you say it, what you have in St. Pete Beach is NOT Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4."
Well, Jill, you're just plain wrong. I've explained in detail on my blog why St. Pete Beach's rules are functionally identical to Amendment 4, and no matter how many times you deny it, you still have failed to present a single shred of fact, law, evidence or argument to prove me wrong. As they say, "You got nuthin'".
Jill, if you are so convinced that I am wrong, then why don't you explain WHY you think I'm wrong...but of course you must do so in a way that addresses the facts, law and evidence that I have raised.
You seem to be a passionate and committed supporter of Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4, and, believe it or not, I respect that. But Jill, surely you can do better than repeatedly delivering mere campaign slogans and talking points that fail to address the facts and arguments I've raised. If you can't, maybe Ms. Blackner or Mr. Burnaman can.
When you are ready to have a serious discussion about these issues, you know where to find me.
In St. Pete Beach you circumvented the Growth Management Act by voting on land use issues before public hearings were held. Your property taxes have gone up because your property values have gone down - just like everywhere else in Florida. According to the St. Petersburg Times: "We think voters should be wary in blindly believing that St. Pete Beach's experiences would be duplicated statewide should Amendment 4 pass. Amendment 4 isn't designed to go around government the way the situation in St. Pete Beach played out. And it has nothing to do with citizens proposing amendments to the local comprehensive plan, like what has happened in St. Pete Beach."
OK, so you said: "In St. Pete Beach you circumvented the Growth Management Act by voting on land use issues before public hearings were held."
I addressed this argument in my June 13 post : http://stpetebeachandhometowndemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-pete-beach-struggles-with-yet_13.html
SPB did not "circumvent" anything. SPB's A4 rules created a conflict with another validly enacted and fully-enforceable charter provision that is common in many cities that allows referendum voting.
Also, this argument of yours still does not disprove the fact that the core focus of the SPB litigation is not any alleged circumvention of the GMA, but rather it's all about claims that SPB's 75-word ballot summaries of their 150 page comp plan changes were deceptive and misleading. Hometown Democracy apparently does not dispute that the SPB ballot summary litigation could also occur in all Florida cities if Amendment 4 passes. Do you?
You also cite the St. Pete Times story on SPB. I've discussed why the Times got it wrong in both the above link and in my May 29 blogpost at: http://stpetebeachandhometowndemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/05/st-pete-beach-clearly-evidences.html
Maybe a better way to discuss this is to nail down what specific parts of my argument you disagree with:
1. The core argument of Hometown Democracy is the need to give people a vote on comp plan changes. Do you agree? Disagree?
2. Like Amendment 4 / Hometown Democracy because, like Hometown Democracy, SPB required a referendum vote on all comp plan changes. Do you agree? (I hope so, because this is a fact)
3. SPB's attempts to implement its new "referendum vote on comp plan changes" rules resulted in multiple lawsuits alleging that the city failed to provide a complete and accurate summary of its comp plan changes in its 75 word ballot summaries. Do you agree? Disagree?
4. Amendment 4 would also require all cities to summarize their comprehensive plans in 75 word ballot summaries. Do you agree?
5. Amendment 4's ballot summary requirement threatens all Florida cities with the same sorts of ballot language lawsuits that resulted in St. Pete Beach. Do you agree/disagree, and why?
PS I didn't understand your last comment about "there were comments...where are they?" I've posted all of the comments that I've received.
I doubt it. You can rationalize it any way you want but you still cant make the charter amendment in St Pete Beach the same thing as Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4.
Yes, it is your mistake, and yes, the Times is wrong.
But, unlike some, I don't just say what I believe...I have backed up my arguments with facts, explanations and analysis.
You say: "You can rationalize it any way you want but you still cant make the charter amendment in St. Pete Beach the same thing as Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4."
Jill, have you ever actually read the SPB charter amendment? Do you know that it says?
If you have, and if, (despite the clear similarity between the language of the SPB amendment and Amendment 4), you still "doubt" that the points I've raised in my prior blogposts are correct, then, as I've now requested numerous times, please explain why and how, and present your own facts and analysis.
If you haven't read the SPB charter amendment, then you need to do so before making claim about whether it is or is not similar to Amendment 4.
What I've presented isn't rationalization. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "rationalization" as "to devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior." So, by the standard definition, I am not rationalizing because I have presented ample evidence and explanation why my position is not incorrect.
Unfortunately, your stubborn refusal to address my points/arguments, (or, for that matter, to even explain the basis of your own arguments) shows that it is you, not me, who needs to prove up their arguments to avoid the sin of rationalization.
I had sincerely hoped that, as an active representative of the Hometown Democracy movement, you would be willing, even eager to roll up your sleeves and engage in an honest, serious discussion of the issues.
I've backed up my arguments. My invitation to you to do the same remains.
I've laid out the roadmap for you to prove me wrong, if you can. If you are unable or unwilling to try, then there's really nothing left to talk about.
Oh I get it it.. you want mega-room hotels with zillions of tourists to trample over the newly-planted sea oats so you can get the bed tax dollars to plant some more!
ReplyDeleteThere's logic in there somewhere - but it's the kind of logic that is trying to convince people that having the right to vote is somehow bad for them. What a concept to try and sell on our nation's birthday.
There's got to be a better way to support beach renourishment than through increased density.
Jill:
ReplyDeleteI agree that there SHOULD be a better way to support beach renourishment, but the truth is there isn't. St. Pete Beach is one of Florida's most critically eroded beaches, and beach renourishment costs though the year 2033 are projected to total $53 million. That's why I've been working so hard to support Pinellas County's plan to install permanent erosion control structures that will hold more sand on the beach and reduce those renourishment costs to $23 million. But a big chunk of the funding for that project must come from the Pinellas Bed Tax. My point is that Hometown Democracy not only seems to admit that Amendment 4 will reduce Bed Tax revenues, but that seems in a bizarre way to be one of its goals (i.e. reduce tourist density, which results in reduced bed taxes).
Oh, and our sea oats do just fine. St. Pete Beach has had a robust tourist economy since the 1920s. Its an integral part of our community. It's why we have all of the wonderful shops and restaurants and other amenities that make us the envy of so many other beach communities. This is a good thing, right?
It's only the anti-development minority, (the folks who file all the lawsuits) who are opposed to tourists and hotels, and who say the same sorts of things that Hometown Democracy is saying to the rest of Florida. How's that workin' for us here in St. Pete Beach? Not so good. It will be the same for everyone if Amendment 4 passes.
As for the logic of why voting on comp plans is bad for local communities and bad for Florida, well, I've laid those arguments out in other blogposts on this blog. I'd love it if we could have a real, detailed conversation about this, but all I ever hear is soundbites. My arguments are completely logical and are backed up by the events and litigation that has plagued St. Pete Beach.
I invite you or anyone from Hometown Democracy to subject my arguments to a logical, detailed analysis, support that analysis with verifiable facts, and then we'll be getting somewhere. You've never addressed my arguments that it is nearly impossible to put comp plans on the ballot, to summarize them in 75 word ballot summaries, without subjecting cities to the same crippling litigation costs that have been suffered by St. Pete Beach. You also don't deny or refute my points in this blogpost...i.e., that Amendment 4 threatens to reduce tourism and bed tax revenues, which in turn reduces funding for beach preservation. Emotionally-charged soundbites are fun, but can't we rise above that and have a serious, substantive discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of Amendment 4? Isn't that something you want? I know I do.
And YES, I DO support tourism, in part because it does provide funding for beach preservation. Again, tourism has a long history in St. Pete Beach. It is a vital part of our community and it needs to be able to maintain its viability. What is wrong with that?
Finally, and again, I agree with you that there SHOULD be a better way to support beach renourishment, just as I agree that offshore drilling should be banned entirely, etc etc. But since there is no other way to fund our beach preservation projects, I'm going to stay in the real world and do what I can to protect my beaches. If you have a practical, real-world alternative, I'd love to hear it!
Oh, and I do really mean this...thanks for commenting!
There is no such thing as no other way.
ReplyDeleteWhat exists is the lack of political will to fund these renourishment projects some other way.
Tourists have been coming to Florida for decades largely due to the fact that our beaches were mostly unspoiled.
Why do you think our Gulf Coast tourism is slipping and tourisn in the Panhandle is increasing.
They haven't killed the goose that lays the golden egg there yet.
(The oil spill may do it for them, unfortunately.)
PS
ReplyDeleteHopefully, Amendment 4 will pass. Then people who live in St. Pete Beach will vote on those issues and will decide what they think is beneficial for their community and what is not.
People shouldn't be forced to live with changes they feel are detrimental to their community just because someone says "if you want beach renourishment you have to do it this way, or else."
Besides, if people agree that these changes are desireable and necessary, Amendment 4 also gives them the power to back their commissions proposed changes by approving them at the ballot box.
And no, what you currently have in St. Pete beach is NOT Hometown Democracy.
Jill:
ReplyDeleteTourism in St. Pete Beach is suffering because the hotels need to be able to redevelop and upgrade in order to retain their viability and competitiveness as tourist destinations. Their ability to do so has been and is being impaired by our Amendment 4-style regulations. Weintraub admitted it to the TBRPC, and now you seem to as well.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you agreeing with Weintraub that St. Pete Beach's hotels should be replaced with 2-story B&Bs?
You acknowledge that tourism depends on our having robust, healthy beaches...and that's why beach preservation and renourishment funding is so critical.
Right now, it's the tourists who are paying the taxes for our beach renourishment through the Bed Tax. Yet you do not dispute my argument that Amendment 4 will impact tourism density and reduce Bed Tax revenues.
You say that there is a "lack of political will to fund these renourishment projects some other way", but if tourists don't pay for these projects, then isn't it true that the only remaining option is to tax Florida's residents? So why isn't this another example of why Amendment 4 will result in increased taxes on Florida's residents? Please explain!
I'm saying that the people in St Pete Beach should decide. Renourishing the beach isn't going to help them if living among towering hotels ruins the reason they want to live there in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAnd, please, no matter how many times you say it, what you have in St. Pete Beach is NOT Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4.
How much does it cost to insure multiple story hotels? Because Florida homeowners will end up subsidizing that risk too.
ReplyDeleteJill,
ReplyDeleteKevin runs this blog so he can argue with Amendment 4 supporters. There's only 3 of us reading this thing. Maybe it would be easier if Kevin just emailed you. He and his developer friends keep beating the St Pete Beach dead horse. They couldn't come up with any legitimate reason to oppose it so they put the St Pete Beach spin on it. Voters aren't that stupid, though. Voters deserve to vote on the future of their communities.
Kevin, don't worry, when Amendment 4 passes St Pete Beach residents will have it easier in trying to manage growth responsibly. I wonder what your next cause will be...maybe to erect a Developer's Museum in St Pete Beach, showing how high the hotels have gotten over time...yeah, that might attract developers to vacation in St Pete Beach.
Jill:
ReplyDeleteRegarding your comment:
"Hopefully, Amendment 4 will pass. Then people who live in St. Pete Beach will vote on those issues and will decide what they think is beneficial for their community and what is not."
and
"I'm saying that the people in St Pete Beach should decide. Renourishing the beach isn't going to help them if living among towering hotels ruins the reason they want to live there in the first place."
You don't seem to be reading or comprehending what I've been saying. The people of St. Pete Beach HAVE decided...we voted to repeal most of the Amendment 4-style rules we adopted, and soon we will have repealed all of them completely. The people of St. Pete Beach have voted to restore to our elected officials (you know, the ones you distrust so much) the power to make decisions about comprehensive plans and comp plan changes.
That's what the people of St. Pete Beach want, and we should know, because we are the only ones in Florida who have tried to put our comp plans on the ballot.
Also, you said:
"And, please, no matter how many times you say it, what you have in St. Pete Beach is NOT Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4."
Well, Jill, you're just plain wrong. I've explained in detail on my blog why St. Pete Beach's rules are functionally identical to Amendment 4, and no matter how many times you deny it, you still have failed to present a single shred of fact, law, evidence or argument to prove me wrong. As they say, "You got nuthin'".
Jill, if you are so convinced that I am wrong, then why don't you explain WHY you think I'm wrong...but of course you must do so in a way that addresses the facts, law and evidence that I have raised.
You seem to be a passionate and committed supporter of Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4, and, believe it or not, I respect that. But Jill, surely you can do better than repeatedly delivering mere campaign slogans and talking points that fail to address the facts and arguments I've raised. If you can't, maybe Ms. Blackner or Mr. Burnaman can.
When you are ready to have a serious discussion about these issues, you know where to find me.
In St. Pete Beach you circumvented the Growth Management Act by voting on land use issues before public hearings were held.
ReplyDeleteYour property taxes have gone up because your property values have gone down - just like everywhere else in Florida.
According to the St. Petersburg Times:
"We think voters should be wary in blindly believing that St. Pete Beach's experiences would be duplicated statewide should Amendment 4 pass. Amendment 4 isn't designed to go around government the way the situation in St. Pete Beach played out. And it has nothing to do with citizens proposing amendments to the local comprehensive plan, like what has happened in St. Pete Beach."
Jill
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting...now we're talkin!
OK, so you said: "In St. Pete Beach you circumvented the Growth Management Act by voting on land use issues before public hearings were held."
I addressed this argument in my June 13 post : http://stpetebeachandhometowndemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-pete-beach-struggles-with-yet_13.html
SPB did not "circumvent" anything. SPB's A4 rules created a conflict with another validly enacted and fully-enforceable charter provision that is common in many cities that allows referendum voting.
Also, this argument of yours still does not disprove the fact that the core focus of the SPB litigation is not any alleged circumvention of the GMA, but rather it's all about claims that SPB's 75-word ballot summaries of their 150 page comp plan changes were deceptive and misleading. Hometown Democracy apparently does not dispute that the SPB ballot summary litigation could also occur in all Florida cities if Amendment 4 passes. Do you?
You also cite the St. Pete Times story on SPB. I've discussed why the Times got it wrong in both the above link and in my May 29 blogpost at: http://stpetebeachandhometowndemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/05/st-pete-beach-clearly-evidences.html
Maybe a better way to discuss this is to nail down what specific parts of my argument you disagree with:
1. The core argument of Hometown Democracy is the need to give people a vote on comp plan changes. Do you agree? Disagree?
2. Like Amendment 4 / Hometown Democracy because, like Hometown Democracy, SPB required a referendum vote on all comp plan changes. Do you agree? (I hope so, because this is a fact)
3. SPB's attempts to implement its new "referendum vote on comp plan changes" rules resulted in multiple lawsuits alleging that the city failed to provide a complete and accurate summary of its comp plan changes in its 75 word ballot summaries. Do you agree? Disagree?
4. Amendment 4 would also require all cities to summarize their comprehensive plans in 75 word ballot summaries. Do you agree?
5. Amendment 4's ballot summary requirement threatens all Florida cities with the same sorts of ballot language lawsuits that resulted in St. Pete Beach. Do you agree/disagree, and why?
PS I didn't understand your last comment about "there were comments...where are they?" I've posted all of the comments that I've received.
My mistake.
ReplyDeleteSo you're right and The Times is wrong?
I doubt it. You can rationalize it any way you want but you still cant make the charter amendment in St Pete Beach the same thing as Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4.
Jill:
ReplyDeleteYes, it is your mistake, and yes, the Times is wrong.
But, unlike some, I don't just say what I believe...I have backed up my arguments with facts, explanations and analysis.
You say: "You can rationalize it any way you want but you still cant make the charter amendment in St. Pete Beach the same thing as Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4."
Jill, have you ever actually read the SPB charter amendment? Do you know that it says?
If you have, and if, (despite the clear similarity between the language of the SPB amendment and Amendment 4), you still "doubt" that the points I've raised in my prior blogposts are correct, then, as I've now requested numerous times, please explain why and how, and present your own facts and analysis.
If you haven't read the SPB charter amendment, then you need to do so before making claim about whether it is or is not similar to Amendment 4.
What I've presented isn't rationalization. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "rationalization" as "to devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior." So, by the standard definition, I am not rationalizing because I have presented ample evidence and explanation why my position is not incorrect.
Unfortunately, your stubborn refusal to address my points/arguments, (or, for that matter, to even explain the basis of your own arguments) shows that it is you, not me, who needs to prove up their arguments to avoid the sin of rationalization.
I had sincerely hoped that, as an active representative of the Hometown Democracy movement, you would be willing, even eager to roll up your sleeves and engage in an honest, serious discussion of the issues.
I've backed up my arguments. My invitation to you to do the same remains.
I've laid out the roadmap for you to prove me wrong, if you can. If you are unable or unwilling to try, then there's really nothing left to talk about.