Hometown Democracy Throws Truth Under the Bus in Televised Amendment 4 Debate

Supporters of Amendment 4 are dead wrong when they dismiss St. Pete Beach's costly, disastrous experiment with Hometown Democracy-style referendum rules as having "absolutely nothing" to do with Amendment 4.  During a recent televised debate (See Part 1 Here, and Part 2 Here),  Hometown Democracy leader Bett Willett smeared St. Pete Beach as a "red herring", claiming that city officials "bypassed state law" by putting comprehensive plan changes on the ballot without holding public hearings or sending the changes to state growth management officials.  She even claimed that "If Amendment 4 had been in place, [St. Pete Beach] wouldn't have had any lawsuits at all."

Ms. Willett's claims are absolutely untrue.  Floridians should know that the Amendment 4 campaign has repeatedly misstated both the law of Florida and the facts.

First, St. Pete Beach did not bypass state law. 

1. In fact, St. Pete Beach held all of the hearings and followed all of the procedures required under Florida's Growth Management Act.  
2. Ms. Willett's false claim that St. Pete Beach's referenda violated state growth management laws was rejected in by the Department of Community Affairs (the growth management officials who review comp plans and who regulate Florida's growth management process) in August, 2009, when it issued its Final Order ruling that St. Pete Beach's comprehensive plan changes were "in compliance."   This ruling was not made lightly.  It was made after legal challenges by St. Pete Beach's anti-development folks and a several-day trial/hearing with Hometown Democracy's Ross Burnaman leading the legal case against St. Pete Beach.
3. The Judge in the St. Pete Beach litigation has also ruled that Florida's growth management laws did not require St. Pete Beach to hold public hearings before putting its comprehensive plan changes on the ballot.   

Ms. Willett is just plain wrong.  Florida law does not require what she says it requires, and St. Pete Beach did not violate or bypass Florida's Growth Management Act.  Read here for a more detailed discussion of why St. Pete Beach did not bypass or circumvent Florida's Growth Management laws.

Second, Ms. Willett is wrong when she says that there would have been "no lawsuits in St. Pete Beach" if it had "followed Amendment 4."  The truth is that even if St. Pete Beach had held its referenda at the end of the process (as required by Amendment 4), the city would still be mired in litigation, and a similar fate threatens all Floridians if Amendment 4 passes in November.

According to Ken Weiss (the attorney for the anti-development folks in the St. Pete Beach litigation), the "central issue" in the St. Pete Beach lawsuits is "the assertion by my clients that there must be full disclosure in the ballot summaries that the voters are approving the threefold increase in height and density."  When St. Pete Beach adopted its local version of Amendment 4 in 2006 and began putting all of its plan amendments on the ballot, Florida election law forced the city to summarize those complex, 150-page documents in 75-word ballot summaries, a hopelessly impossible task.  When St. Pete Beach voters approved a comprehensive plan amendment in 2008 by an overwhelming margin, Weiss' clients sued to overturn the election, contending that the city's 75-word ballot summaries were deceptively unclear.

Contrary to Ms. Willett's false claims, the St. Pete Beach lawsuits are not about timing.  The St. Pete Beach litigation is about ballot language.  Even if St. Pete Beach had held its referenda at the end of the process (as required by Amendment 4),  St. Pete Beach's rules, Amendment 4 and Florida election law would still have required St. Pete Beach to summarize its proposed 150 page comprehensive plan changes in 75-word ballot summaries, and Weiss still would have sued the city, claiming those same summaries were deceptive.

These problems are not unique to St. Pete Beach.  They are inherent flaws in Amendment 4 that would impact all Florida cities.  No matter what Ms. Willett says, that's the plain truth.

Why does the Amendment 4 / Hometown Democracy campaign persist in making claims/statements that mis-state the facts and the law of Florida?  I have no idea, but they should know better.  After all, Hometown Democracy's key players Leslie Blackner and Ross Burnaman are both attorneys.  In fact, Mr. Burnaman was the attorney who handled the anti-development plaintiffs' attempt to oppose the DCA's eventual determination that St. Pete Beach comp plan amendments were in compliance with Florida law.  The DCA was not persuaded by Mr. Burnaman's arguments and claims, and neither should Florida voters. 

St. Pete Beach learned the hard way that Amendment 4 doesn't work.  The City has already repealed many of its overbroad Amendment 4-style regulations, and it is currently considering repealing most or all of what remains.  All Floridians should learn from our mistake.

But no matter what Floridians do, before going to the ballot box in November, they should check the facts and law for themselves rather than trust the false claims of Ms. Willett and the other operatives from Hometown Democracy.

Look Here for more information about Amendment 4, including "Why Comp Plans Should Never be Put on the Ballot" and "Why St. Pete Beach Did Not Circumvent the Growth Management Act."

Postscript:  Amendment 4 supporters who disagree with my assessment that their claims misstate the facts and the law of Florida are cordially and sincerely invited to present information that backs up their claims.  I've been asking for this for a while now.  So far, they've refused to do so, and instead have responded with sarcasm and personal attacks.  The optimist in me looks forward to the day when someone from their ranks will step up and engage in a respectful, well-informed discussion about this very important issue.