I expected that after I presented some clear, indisputable facts and setting the record straight on what really happened in St. Pete Beach, we would quickly progress to an interesting discussion between supporters and opponents about the relative merits of Amendment 4. Instead, I've received a surprising amount of negativity and denial about what actually happened in St. Pete Beach, which is surprising because the nature of the litigation is a matter of public record. I must say that I'm disappointed that it appears that some of the most important conversations about the merits and weaknesses of Amendment 4 are likely never to happen, because in order for that to occur, there needs to be a basic agreement as to the simple facts.
Here is the tail end of a recent exchange in the comments section of my recent blogpost on September 4, 2010. The comment is posted by an anonymous Amendment 4 supporter under the alias "Vote Yes on":
Supporters have responded to your specious claims saying that St Pete Beach is not and has not been an example of Amendment 4. It is not an example of Amendment 4. Your masters, the Florida Chamber, hired campaign consultants last year and the game plan they devised was to use that as part of the campaign message intended to distract and confuse voters. You have been trained and are following their game plan. They think that if you keep saying St Pete Beach is Amendment 4 people will eventually believe it. You've based your opposition on a false premise. Supporters are not going to waste time arguing over St Pete Beach because it is not valid. And we don't have to prove it to you. So you've got to come up with a better reason. And you can sit there and beat your chest saying that it really is an example but we disagree. To argue with you over why and how is not productive. It is not an example so there is no point in arguing over your failed premise. You wouldn't conceed anything. And they wouldn't let you conceed, either. And we know they've instructed you to keep trying to argue about St Pete because their hope is that it will keep that failed premise alive, but I trust that voters will see through all of the false claims. We can agree to disagree on the St Pete premise. And I know they won't let you give that one up. Because you've established a (virtual) political connection with St Pete Beach, they will have you continue with the blog every week and keep shouting and pounding your chest saying, "Everyone!!! Listen!!! I'm over here and it really is an example!!! It really is, I swear!!! And I really am a resident over here so I do have some credibility!!! Please believe me!!! I want them to argue with me!!! That will add some legitimacy to my claims!!!"
And meahwhile there's only a couple of us reading this silly blog.
"Vote Yes on"
I've received similar comments from Amendment 4 supporters in the past. Here's my response to Mr. "Vote Yes" and the others who have made similar comments:
Dear "Vote Yes":
It's clear that we disagree and that we agree to disagree.
I think we can also agree that the readership of my "silly blog" is, well, modest.
You are mistaken in your belief that I am controlled by "masters", that I'm being "instructed" to say or do anything, and/or that anyone has the power to prevent me from "conceding" anything. Nobody has "trained" me to say what I'm saying...that's a laughable concept since I reject campaign tactics, and I'm dealing in a level of factual detail far beyond what either the Hometown Democracy campaign or the No on 4 campaign have deigned to examine.
My blog content is my own, and if by some lucky chance you were to produce some factual information that disproves what I've presented, I am ready, willing and able to say in my blog "hey, I was wrong, I've changed my mind", and there's nothing and nobody who would stop me from doing so. Unfortunately, no such information has been provided by anyone.
Again, I'm not really arguing with you. Our dialog hasn't really even progressed to the point where we could have a real argument. Facts are facts. Neither you, nor me, nor anyone can "concede" about whether the sky is blue, whether grass is green, or whether ballot language/challenge lawsuits occurred in St. Pete Beach as a result of putting comp plan amendments on the ballot. Those are just the facts.
I think part of the problem is that folks tend to hear different things when they hear the same words being spoken. For example, when I say "St. Pete Beach is an example of the flaws of Amendment 4", supporters tend to interpret that statement to be an assertion that the language of SPB and Amendment 4 and/or the events of SPB are identical, and they respond by claiming that St. Pete Beach is different because, for example, the comp plan amendments in St. Pete Beach arose from a citizen petition, rather than from the city.
Unfortunately, when I say "St. Pete Beach is an example of the flaws of Amendment 4", the Hometown Democracy folks don't seem to hear what I'm saying. I agree that there are some distinctions between that is a distinction, but those distinctions are irrelevant. My point is and has always been that when St. Pete Beach put its comp plan amendments on the ballot (which is precisely what Amendment 4 seeks to do), the city suffered negative effects, especially in the form of lawsuits which focused not on how the comp plan got to the ballot, but rather on how the city draft its ballot summaries once the comp plans got onto the ballot. I just don't see how that can be a matter of dispute.
Of course, you say that Amendment 4 supporters have "responded" to my claims. Well, yes, technically I've received a lot of "responses", but none of them have disproven any of the facts I've presented. The "responses" I've received have been personal attacks, sarcastic comments about diminutive following of my blog, and blanket, unsubstantiated statements that I'm wrong. That's ok if we are arguing about something ephemeral, like religion or philosophy, where there are no hard facts or objectively "right" answers, but it doesn't work in matters of FACTS.
I don't need or want to "argue" with you to "add legitimacy" to my claims...the facts speak for themselves to any and all who care enough about this issue to take a good look. What we can "argue" about, if we ever were to progress to that point, is what impact those facts can/should have on the question of whether Amendment 4 should or shouldn't be passed. For example, I was really hoping to be able to have a rational, civilized conversation with a Jill Yelverton or a George Niemann, or even Leslie Blackner or Ross Burnaman (which would be ideal) where we could, as a starting point, recognize the fact that:
- Overdevelopment is a serious problem in Florida
- Many Floridians are deeply concerned, frustrated and angry about the problem of overdevelopment and the impact that overdevelopment has had on Florida and its economy
- Putting comp plan amendments on the ballot is one possible approach that is designed to address the problem of overdevelopment, and
- Putting comp plans on the ballot does have negative side effects (i.e. exposing cities to liability under Florida election law for ballot language challenges and Growth Management Act challenges).
Unfortunately, we haven't gotten that far because you seem to be denying that ballot language challenges (and the resulting cost/impact on Florida's cities) are a possible consequence of enacting Amendment 4, and that's just not true.
As I've said before, any Florida voter who truly understands the risks of Amendment 4 and decides to vote for it anyway, that's their choice, and that's the American way. Folks may be so angry about overdevelopment that they decide they are willing to put up with the risk of lawsuits resulting from passing Amendment 4, and if that's how folks feel, then I respect that.
And in all of this, I just don't see why it's necessary to be disrespectful.
Cut and past here if you want to learn the facts:
ReplyDeletehttp://stpetebeachtruth.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-about-st-pete-beach-and-florida_12.html
Lynn, we readers of your blog count on you for in-depth research and accurate facts. You don't disappoint us. Your statements about Amendment 4 are right on. Thanks for setting the record straight on St Pete Beach, too -- which (ask Harry Metz, Vice Mayor at the time) has nothing to do with Amendment 4. The mess in St Pete Beach would not have happened if they HAD had Amendment 4 in place! Keep up the great work, Lynn. You have no obligation to deal with people who want to believe lies and who are disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
An accurate example of how Amendment 4 works for a community that wants their community to develop according to their best interests, is Yankeetown. The ordinance those citizens passed after being abused by their elected council is what every community in Florida would like to have. Voting YES on Amendment 4 gives all of us a seat at the table so we can decide the future of our communities.
ReplyDeleteInterested SPB Resident
ReplyDeleteLynn and Anonymous, there is simply no fact you can produce that refutes THE FACT that the Comprehensive Plan at issue on St. Pete Beach had to be voted on and was voted on by the residents pursuant to Section 3.15 of its Charter - a/k/a/ Hometown Democracy provision that required ALL comp plan amendments (excluding those affecting 5 or fewer parcels) to have a referendum vote.
That Section of the Charter does NOT qualify how the amendment is produced i.e., by the City Staff and then placed on the ballot by the Commission; or, as in this case, prepared by St. Pete Beach CITIZENS and placed on the ballot by the Commission which is required by the operative provisions of the Charter contained in Section 7.02 (Initiatives) and Section 3.15 (Hometown Democracy).
In a nutshell, since Section 3.15 required ALL amendments go to referendum (Just like Amendment 4), it trumped the provision in Section 7.02 that wold have allowed the Commission to adopt the citizens plan amendment created by initiative WITHOUT A VOTER REFERENDUM. More simply, St. Pete Beach's Hometown Democracy provision eliminated that option and REQUIRED a voter referendum. How is that any different than Amendment 4?
MOST IMPORTANTLY, as Kevin has accurately and repeatedly stated but YES to A4 people just ignore -the St. Pete Beach litigation challenges the Ballot Summary language as being misleading and deceptive. This issue is EXACTLY the SAME issue that every jurisdiction in Florida will face if Amendment 4 passes.
Just ONE voter can be unhappy with the election result and sue the City or County claiming the ballot smmary is deceptive and misleading or in most cases, it didn't say what the complainant thought was important to THEM which might not be important to OTHERS and so the fight and litigation will ensue.
BTW- you can't settle this kind of litigation because the proper parties are all the voters who voted "yes" on the amendment. How do we figure that out?
Hing:
ReplyDeleteThese discussions on your blog are diversionary. Again, supporters don't have to prove anything to you. It would be fruitless to try to convince you.
Even though you think you provide "indisputable" facts, you have provided some facts but a good amount of assumptions and opinions (ie. that the benefits of Amendment 4 were "slowing/stopping development approval".
It is an assumption that Amendment 4 would stop development approval. When you make these kind of assumptions you lose credibility. It shows that you have underlying distrust of the process and/or the voter.
Here are some facts:
1) Growth is not the problem. It is how growth has been managed without caring for infrastructure or the overburdening of the taxpayer to subsidize growth. Overdevelopment has helped destroy Florida's economy
2) The system is stacked in favor of special interests and has allowed those interests to deviate from growth plans without regard for cost, or denegration of quality of life for existing residents.
3) The opposition is a special interest group that now has control of the legislature. They are one of the most powerful lobbies in the state. They don't want the citizen to have a vote because it will make it harder for them to push though plan changes that provide the best profit margins
5) Almost all privately initiated plan changes come from developers
6) Local governments today are sued for land use decisions in the absence of Florida Hometown Democracy. There is conjecture but no credible evidence that indicates that the volume of lawsuits would increase as a result of the passage of Amendment 4
7) If citizens have to pay for growth decisions, they deserve a vote
Keep up the good factual information Kevin. The bottom line is that Amendment 4 is so braod that it will completely shut down a local government's ability to effectively and efficiently operate and meet the needs of the community. The issue to the proponents of 4 appears to be density, Hieght, and intensity. If the Amendment 4 language would have narrowed its focus to just the angst of the people we likely wouldn't have much to debate. Instead this broad language will impact schools, parks, a city's ability to correct traffic issues and attend to emergency projects. The costs to tax payers will be immense and the loss of jobs will make this state unemployable.
ReplyDelete