Amendment 4's biggest (and most hidden) flaw is that by requiring all comprehensive plan changes to go on the ballot, Florida election law requires that those comp plan changes (which often involve hundreds of pages of complex land use language) must be summarized in a ballot summary that is 75 words or less, which exposes cities to massive litigation costs due to ballot language challenges.
Why is trying to create a 75 word ballot summary of a comprehensive plan change such a problem? What's the big deal?
The problem is that it is impossible to adequately summarize hundreds of pages of land use changes into a 75 word ballot summary, and if Florida's cities are forced to undertake this impossible task, they will be vulnerable to costly lawsuits challenging those summaries as deceptive and incomplete...which is precisely what happened in St. Pete Beach.
In 2008, St. Pete Beach put proposed comprehensive plan changes on the ballot. We did this because in 2006, we made changes to our city charter which (like Amendment 4) required that future changes to our comprehensive plan must be approved by a vote of the citizens. So when we put our comprehensive plan changes on the ballot in 2008, Florida election law forced the city to summarize the 150 pages of changes into a 75 word ballot summary.
Here's what the comprehensive plan change looked like....150 pages worth.On Election Day, 2008, our comp plan was approved by the voters of St. Pete Beach by an overwhelming majority vote. Happy Day, right? Wrong! After the comp plan was approved by the voters, St. Pete Beach was promptly sued by a resident who alleged that the city's 75 word ballot summaries were "rife with deceptive and misleading statements" and that they omitted "material facts." Ironically, the plaintiff alleges that the city's 75 words were deficient, but in his complaint he cannot even describe what is missing from the city's ballot summaries in less than 75 words!
The litigation that started in 2008 is still ongoing, and in 2010 alone St. Pete Beach has incurred over $200,000 in legal fees defending the vote of the people. By comparison, St. Pete Beach spent only $33,000 on litigation in 2001. Similar problems threaten all Florida cities if Amendment 4 passes, since all Florida cities will also be forced to undertake the impossible task of crafting 75 word ballot summaries of comprehensive plan changes that involve hundreds of pages of complex land use changes.
The problem with summarizing comprehensive plans in 75 words under Amendment 4 is that you just can't fit everything that everyone cares about into those 75 words. No matter how hard you try, there will always be someone who can file a lawsuit alleging that what is most important to THEM was left out, and that the ballot language was "misleading" or "deceptive" or "incomplete." And like a swarm of bedbugs, land use lawyers thrive by feeding on these legal vulnerabilities...with all Floridians suffering for it.
So why will fixing the problems caused by Amendment 4 be as difficult as exterminating a house full of bedbugs? The reason is simple: Amendment 4 is a statewide constitutional amendment. Once Floridians figure out how overbroad and damaging Amendment 4 really is, local cities won't have the legal authority to alter or modify the scope of Amendment 4's rules to suit the needs and desires of the local population.
By comparison, once St. Pete Beach's voters realized the mistake they'd made by adopting their Amendment 4-style rules, we repealed their broad scope in favor of a much more restricted set of rules...but we were able to fix our mistake because we had the power to undo the changes we'd made to our local city charter. But since Amendment 4 is a constitutional amendment, no Florida city will have the power to undo its requirements once it's been approved, even if a majority of the city's voters want to alter or repeal it.
So, just like a bedbug infestation, once Amendment 4 is approved, Floridians will stuck dealing with the vexing problems that come with it for a very, very long time.
Blah, Blah, Blah...more developer nonsense. The scare tactics won't work. Voters are not that stupid.
ReplyDeleteBallot language is sufficient for all other important issues, so land use plans will be no different. St Pete Beach is interesting but it is a non-factor when it comes to Amendment 4. I know, you figure if you just keep saying it, voters will eventually believe it's true. Voters deserve a seat at the table on growth plan changes that affect them so drastically. When developers want to line a beach with 30 story hotel buildings it's no wonder that citizens would revolt. They need a say in St Pete Beach, as well as, throughout the rest of the state. Developers will have to follow everyone's growth plans instead of changing them. You and your developer friends will get used to it in no time, don't worry. I can't wait until Nov 2nd.
George/Jill/Bett, these aren't scare tactics...I wish they were only scare tactics.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Hometown Democracy's unsubstantiated, factually inaccurate arguments, my comments are based on cold, hard, terrible facts. Facts that are so true and so terrible that, rather than trying to deal with them, Leslie Blackner and Wayne Garcia simply LIED on Sept 2nd during their WMNF radio discussion with Rob Lorei. Rather than deal with the truth, they just ignored it and lied to the people of Florida about St. Pete Beach.
"Ballot language is sufficient for all other important issues." What on earth are you talking about? If ballot language was sufficient, then there would be no lawsuits in St. Pete Beach.
Guess what...St. Pete Beach is brimming with lawsuits precisely because its good faith efforts to comply with the IMPOSSIBLE task of summarizing a 150 page comprehensive plan in 75 words opened the door for the anti-development folks to file a ridiculous lawsuit that's been plaguing us for years and costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's the plain truth. The truth may annoy you, it may be inconvienient to your illogical cause, but it's not nonsense.
If you are saying that developers tried to put 30 story buildings in St. Pete Beach, you are lying. The height at issue was 12 stories, not 30.
Oh, and the lawsuits are NOT a citizen revolt. The citizens approved our increases to building height...by an overwhelming majority vote. It was only ONE or TWO people who sued. This was NOT a citizen revolt. The citizens of St. Pete Beach supported our changing our comp plan and they repeatedly call on Pyle to withdraw his lawsuits, but he refuses to do so. Not a good citizen.
The citizens of St. Pete Beach don't need the stuff you're trying to sell to the People of Florida.
We tried your overbroad rules. We found out that they don't work. And then we repealed them.
It's bad enough that St. Pete Beach finally killed most of the bedbugs that we brought into our own house. Don't you dare try to break in to our house and fill it with YOUR bedbugs.
Yes Man:
ReplyDeleteOh, and you say BLAH BLAH BLAH, but you never offer any facts, and the few things you offer as facts are clearly wrong.
I'm dealing in facts. The facts about St. Pete Beach are clear.
If you are a true advocate for Amendment 4, why don't you do what Leslie Blackner and Wayne Garcia can't do...provide a factually accurate response to my latest blogpost.
Do the right thing for once. Acknowledge that your leaders were wrong, and provide a factually accurate basis for arguing that St. Pete Beach is not an excellent example of the flaws of Amendment 4.
Until you do, the only folks serving up BLAH BLAH BLAH are the Hometown Democracy folks.
Notice how Hing distances himself from St Pete Beach citizens..."The citizens approved our increases to building height". "our increases"??? It sounds like one of the developers talking. I guess that's because it's one of the developers in sheep's (citizen's) clothing. Be careful Hing, you're slipping and letting your true alliances surface. Most often agendas don't stay hidden anyway. On Nov 2nd citizens will get a seat at the table and St Pete Beach will be better off. We all will be better off. Hing and his developer friends will have to let citizens have their say. And it will work out well. Enough of the "blah, blah, blah" and on to the polls!!!!
ReplyDeleteOh, Yes Man, you're such a kidder!
ReplyDeleteNo, seriously, that's your response to the fact that the leaders of your campaign are making false claims about St. Pete Beach?
You don't rebut any of my arguments. You don't deny or disprove any of the facts I've presented.
Instead you play word games and fabricate "agendas" that don't exist. I've said it before, I say it again: I have no agendas and I've never taken a dime from a developer. I just want to save Floridians from the pain we all suffered here in St. Pete Beach. As a resident of St. Pete Beach, it's my civic duty to oppose Amendment 4.
I've been completely honest about the facts about St. Pete Beach. I've invite you and Ms. Blackner and Mr. Burnaman to prove me wrong on the facts, but apparently you lack the ability to do so, and instead you resort to baseless personal attacks.
I invite you to do your homework and check the facts, and then come back and let's have a real discussion/debate.
Hing:
ReplyDeleteIt seems the purpose of your blog is to make felacious statements about Amendment 4 just so that supporters will respond and then you can engage in endless arguments with them. What purpose does that serve, other than to satisfy your need to argue with people you disagree with? Other blogs like Sticks of Fire, etc explore a whole host of ideas. The guy that runs Sticks of Fire doesn't respond to every comment, as you seem to do.
There are things that should be questioned, considering how you run this blog and considering that other groups in Pinellas have discovered certain things about you that certainly make your motives questionable both in SOS and Amendment 4:
1) You are now posting on Florida2010.com. How does the “average” citizen with no ties to development end up appearing on the Florida Chamber’s website??? You run an anti-4 blog, you post on their website, you attend meetings related to Amendment 4 taking pictures etc. You do all of this just because you want to “help” citizens??? Is the Florida Chamber paying you for this? They pay many others for actively opposing as you are doing, so maybe there's a little something in it for you? Com'on, you can tell us...we won't tell anyone else. We know you want to be totally honest…that’s part of helping the community…being honest with your fellow citizens, right?
2) More than one reliable source tells us that you are not even a resident of St Pete Beach, even though you claim to be a property owner and purport to represent the interests of real property owners. Since you are not a real property owner in St Pete Beach, do you just rent someone else's place? Maybe a friend's or a business acquaintance's place? Or do you just use their address so you can stay active in St Pete Beach politics?
We're trying to do our homework, so please be honest and provide us with the facts.
YesMan: For some reason Blogger categorized your last post as "Spam" and put in a spamblocker folder. (I make no comment about that).
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad that instead of addressing the facts about St. Pete Beach, you choose instead to engage in personal attacks and to question my motives in an attempt to discredit my arguments.
I have no hidden agendas. I'm not being paid by any chamber of commerce or developer or anyone else to express my opinions about Amendment 4.
My purpose is not to argue with you or anyone else. As I've said from the beginning, I'm presenting facts and arguments about the flaws I've seen in Amendment 4, and I've repeatedly asked each and every Amendment 4 supporter whose commented or emailed me to have a respectful, reasoned discussion about the issue, and to present their facts and if they can show me that my facts or arguments are wrong, then great. But so far nobody other than Chris Guiliana has been willing or able to have that kind of discussion, and that's a shame.
And yes, I do this because I want to help all of the citizens of Florida. I've seen what a disaster putting comp plans on the ballot can be, and I feel its important to share with others who haven't lived through this and haven's seen the effects it can have on a small city.
Grassroots activism is not the sole province of Hometown Democracy supporters. Oh, and for the billionth time, I am a resident of St. Pete Beach.
I suppose its not surprising that my content has been reposted and linked on websites/blogs that oppose Amendment 4, but then my content has also been reposted and linked on websites/blogs that support Amendment 4 as well.
I would hope that Florida voters would take a fraction of the time I've spent looking at this issue to examine the facts and make up their own mind before voting in November.
Oh, and by the way, I fully respect anyone who looks at the facts and decides to vote for Amendment 4. I do think that folks need to know the real truth about St. Pete Beach in order to make a truly informed decision. If folks know and understand the real truth about St. Pete Beach and still decide they want Amendment 4, then mazel tov, that's their right.
I don't cast aspersions or question the motives of anyone who supports Amendment 4 or campaigns in favor of Amendment 4. It's unfortunate that that basic courtesy is not reciprocated.
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!!!"
ReplyDeleteAnd meahwhile there's only a couple of us reading this silly blog.