Amendment 4 will amend the Florida Constitution to require referenda on changes to your local growth plan,

which serves as a community’s long-term growth blueprint. Growth plans are intended to protect Floridians

from unplanned growth. But even the best of plans don’t mean anything when our elected officials

continuously grant plan changes. Amendment 4 will put teeth back into our growth management process. It

will provide voters with VETO POWER over proposals that are not consistent with the plan. Too many

destructive plan changes have been granted in recent years by our elected officials. The harm caused includes:

Amendment 4 will replace negative-impact development and sprawl with well-planned, comfortable

communities designed to attract business and industry. Amendment 4 will allow:

Developers need to play by a community’s rules (rules that our local Comprehensive Land-Use Plans make

clear), or else convince a majority of the local voters that changing the rules is in everyone’s best interest.

Amendment 4 will give voters VETO POWER only over projects that exceed what the community’s land-use

plan approves for a particular site:

Examples: a big-box store in the middle of an area designated “residential,” or a megadevelopment on land

designated as “wetlands,” “conservation,” or “agricultural.”

Hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens from all parts of Florida.

A powerful alliance of business interests and government officials oppose Amendment 4. These are people

who benefit from the out-of-control development that has swept across our State in recent years. This is a true

David and Goliath struggle to restore the balance of power and protect the public interest. The opponents are

amassing a huge war-chest to fight Amendment 4. They’re spreading lies and distortions, claiming that

Amendment 4 will crash the economy, stop growth, and cost us jobs – when, in truth, the developers’ own

greedy overdevelopment has already caused this very situation. So don’t believe a word of it, and consult

At the November 2010 election: Give yourself a vote on growth !

This is what Amendment # 4 (Florida Hometown Democracy) will look like on the November 2010 ballot:

COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS.

comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government

by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides

definitions.

.

CONTENTS: Page

Chart of Falsehoods v. Facts (2 pages, abridged version) 1

An In-Depth Tutorial begins on page 4 4

Amendment # 4 (Florida Hometown Democracy)

A. What is Amendment 4? 4

B. Why is Amendment 4 necessary? 4

C. How will Amendment 4 work? 5

D. Why is Amendment 4 ‘controversial’? 5

Opponents’ Falsehoods, and Amendment 4 Response 6

The Bottom Line, & Further Information 12

2

A4 will stop all growth, cost

jobs, and harm the economy.

Current land-use plans already allow development for over 100 million people in

Florida, more than 5 times the current State population of 18 million, even if not

one more land-use plan change is approved. There will be plenty of construction,

and construction jobs, even if A4 causes some new plan amendments to be

rejected by the voters.

A4 gives the voters the final say on what development is (or is not) in the public

interest, as it is required to be.

More rational control of development will help the economy, not harm it,

including our State’s mainstays of agriculture and tourism. Overdevelopment

paves over productive farmlands and ranchland, and creates traffic congestion

unattractive to businesses considering relocating to Florida. Continued

overdevelopment and sprawl will chase away Florida’s 80 million annual

tourists, who are uninterested in coming here to see housing tracts and shopping

centers, sit in traffic jams, and bemoan, with us, Florida’s environmental

degradation.

Over-reliance on the boom-and-bust cycle of development has helped put our

economy in the sad shape it’s in. Better control of development will encourage a

stronger, more diversified economy based on permanent, productive jobs.

2a. Too many and costly

elections

A4 provides referenda only (a) for local land-use plan changes (b) after they are

approved by a resident’s local council or commission. A4 has nothing to do with

zoning. Referenda will appear at our regularly scheduled general elections, at

virtually no added cost. If a developer wants a special election, the developer can

3

be required to pay for it.

2b. Voters are incapable of

voting on land-use matters.

Voters already vote on complex tax and other issues. Direct democracy is an

important and much needed check-and-balance provided for by our Founding

Fathers, and upheld by the highest courts in the land.

2c. We already elect

representatives to do the job.

Amendment 4 is a popular movement that grew out of Floridians’ frustration with

the level of control that developers were exerting on our elected representatives,

in order to pass the land-use changes that are crowding our roads and schools,

increasing our taxes, and decreasing our property values and quality of life.

2d. We’ll be voting on

everything.

No, we’ll only vote on comp plan changes that our local governments have

already approved. If a local council or commission denies a change, it does not

go to a citizen vote. Residents of a community will thus have a veto power if we

find these developments are not in the public interest.

Of course, if the developer chooses to develop the land in a way that’s

compatible with the local land-use plan, there need be no citizen vote. That’s of

course the way the original process was intended to work.

“special interest.”

Supporters of A4 are the citizens of Florida, from all walks of life.

Opponents of A4, including Floridians for Smarter Growth, are a “special

interest,” representing developers and allied industries, plus a number of local

government bodies in apparent violation of State law.

3b. Housing developments

add to the tax base.

False – new housing costs more than it provides in tax revenue. Municipalities

have to increase residents’ taxes in order to provide the new infrastructure and

additional services for these new homes. Tax increases are especially high for

“sprawl” development away from the urban service area.

3c. Plans are meant to be

flexible, changed.

The Growth Management Act provides for regular review and approval of our

local Comprehensive Land-Use Plans. A Plan is not a plan if it is changed all the

time and willy-nilly. . . and for the personal gain of “special interests.”

4

litigation.

No, Amendment 4 has nothing to do with SPB, where elected officials illegally

eliminated the various public input stages of the process. A4 retains all of the

reviews and hearings mandated by the State’s Growth Management Act, and then

provides a veto power to local registered voters.

5a. A4 infringes on my

property rights.

A4 protects everyone’s property rights by enforcing the publicly approved local

Comprehensive Land-Use Plan. Residents, in particular, will not have to

continually and repeatedly fight off inappropriate development next door to their

homes, and in their neighborhoods and communities. A4 has nothing to do with

zoning.

5b. A4 infringes on minority

interests.

No. Developers, as a minority, already know what they are permitted to do with

their land. They are required to prove to the public that changes they want to

make are in the public interest. No other ‘minority’ is affected – this is a bogus

claim.

Defeat A4 to save Florida.

Pass A4 to

destruction and overuse; and

5

AMENDMENT 4 (Florida Hometown Democracy)

Amendment 4 on the November 2010 ballot will let voters decide whether their city or county

Comprehensive Land-Use Plan will be changed. These land-use changes determine the destiny of their

communities for generations to come. Currently, local governments (city councils and county commissions)

make those decisions.

This is what Amendment 4 (Florida Hometown Democracy) will look like on the ballot:

GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS

use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject

to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local

planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides definitions.

.

Amendment 4 reached the 2010 ballot thanks to a petition circulated among Florida’s voters for the past 5

years that was signed by more than 1 million Floridians. The organization that researched and drew up the

petition is Florida Hometown Democracy, a grassroots, volunteer movement among Florida residents

unhappy about the State’s continuing rapid pace of overdevelopment and sprawl – including governments

that no longer represent the will of the people, a crashed economy, and spiraling taxes, along with decreasing

property values and quality of life.

If 60% of voters say yes to Amendment 4, local politicians will continue to approve or deny developers’

requests for plan changes as they do now. Amendment 4 adds a final step -- a check-and-balance -- to this

all-too-faulty process, by giving voters a veto power over changes that elected officials have approved.

Under Amendment 4, resident-voters will have the final say – as indeed they should in a democracy -- over

how their communities will grow.

Florida’s 1985 Growth Management Act encourages citizen participation in planning for the realization of

the ‘vision’ they share for their community. Some citizens are active in local planning; many more do not

participate in the process as it currently takes place. Amendment 4 will now guarantee local “ownership” of

community plans at the ballot box.

By giving voters the final say, Amendment 4 will enable resident-voters to call a halt to land uses that cause

such distressing and expensive problems as

6

Florida’s decades-old Growth Management Act (1985) was intended to give citizens the ability to participate

in major land-use decisions affecting their communities. The good news is that the local comprehensive

land-use plan -- which each city or county is required to prepare -- contains adequate land-designation for

any land use purpose. There is minimal need to amend or change that plan.

However, the Growth Management Act has not succeeded in its goal. Developers have sought thousands of

changes to suit their needs to the detriment of local communities. The process for citizen participation is

onerous and has generally proved non-productive, in part because of the lack of attention paid to their

concerns by their local officials, who typically approve all developers’ requests for Plan changes.

To illustrate: the few citizens who manage to take time off from work to make the trip to the government

center to voice concerns about a proposed land-use change that will, for example, replace 20 acres

designated for open space with 1,000 townhomes, must often (a) wait in the chambers for several hours

while other matters are discussed, then (b) watch lengthy developer-orchestrated Powerpoint presentations

extolling the proposed development. After all that, citizens are generally given 2 or 3 minutes each to

express their concerns to the elected officials who will vote on the necessary change in how the land will be

used. Despite citizen opposition, virtually all land-use-change proposals wind up approved by elected

officials. In some cases, citizen input of this sort is dismissed (incorrectly) by government officials as not

being “expert testimony.”

Amendment 4 is necessary to restore to resident-voters the right to determine the future of their communities

and the quality of life that they and their children will share. Amendment 4 allows resident-voters to decide

at the ballot box whether their city or county Land-Use Plan should be changed to permit a different use for a

major parcel of land – say, from agricultural to residential, or from semi-rural to a high-density New Town --

than what their publicly-approved Plan permits.

It’s well documented that developers are among the biggest campaign contributors to local politicians. The

result has been predictable: many elected officials have never seen a development they wouldn’t approve.

They just can’t say no to bad development proposals. Developers’ requests for comp plan changes are rarely

denied, even after major public objections have been presented to the officials.

Did you know that when your city or county representatives vote on a comprehensive plan change, those

officials are exercising the people’s power? When a city council or county commission votes to approve a

land-use change, they are supposed to do so based on the grounds that the change will not harm the public

interest. The public interest is defined very broadly to include all those concerns that make a place a good

community: protection of public health, safety, quality of life, the beauty of a particular place, and the

environment.

Too often local officials in Florida have defined the public interest as being the developers’ economic return.

Land use decisions affect people, their homes, and their communities more than almost any other

governmental decision. Floridians are angry because the community’s values – quality of life, uncrowded

schools, rational civic planning, clean water – are not being given consideration, or else merely short shrift.

7

State law requires each city and county to have a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in order to plan for and

manage growth and development. This Plan designates areas for uses such as residential, commercial,

industrial, agriculture, open space, etc., as well as appropriate height and density limitations. These

boundaries balance everyone’s interest by planning for growth

(a) in appropriate places, and

(b) around available services and resources.

Amendment 4 does not apply to development projects that comply with the local land-use Plan.

Amendment 4 is limited in its approach, applying only to those development proposals that do not comply

with the existing city or county land-use Plan and also have received approval, nonetheless, from local

elected officials.

In instances where a developer wishes to build a project that violates the current local land-use plan (for

example, proposing to build a shopping center in an area designated as “residential”), and if local officials

approve the proposal, then Amendment 4 comes into action, providing voters with veto power at the next

general election.

In summary, under Amendment 4, local politicians will continue to approve or deny developers’ requests for

Plan changes, but Amendment 4 adds a final step – a check-and-balance – by giving voters a veto power

over Plan changes that that politicians approve. Amendment 4 thus guarantees, at the ballot box, residents’

“ownership” of their local land-use plan.

Under Amendment 4, the only person affected by a referendum on a land-use change is a developer who

wants to build

-- more than he is entitled to, or

-- on land that the public has designated for some other purpose.

Developers need to play by a community’s rules, or else they must be able to convince a majority of voters

that the developer’s desired change is in everyone’s best interest.

Amendment 4 gives resident-voters a power over land-use changes that previously rested only in the hands

of government officials and developers. It’s important to understand that elected officials will retain all their

current duties: they will review, consider, and vote on all land-use change proposals. The difference that

Amendment 4 makes is that, if local politicians approve a developer’s request for a Plan change, then it must

be submitted to the voters, who will have the final say.

The prospect of resident-voters taking ultimate control over land use has created much opposition among

developers and their allied businesses, and also among some political entities as well. (Note that recent law

SB 216 makes it clear that political entities may not promote a position on a voter issue.)

In other words, Amendment 4 has generated formidable resistance from the people who benefit monetarily

from the vast housing developments, strip malls, and shopping centers that are overwhelming communities

all across the state: this resistance includes some lenders, architects, planners, builders, realtors, attorneys,

8

chambers of commerce, mortgage bankers, etc. Not surprisingly perhaps Amendment 4 is opposed by a

‘growth industry’ that includes everyone who benefits from Florida’s long-standing status quo of

overdevelopment and sprawl.

This powerful coalition of industry representatives and their friends in political office is fighting Amendment

4 in every way imaginable, pitting moneyed special interests against Florida citizens concerned about their

homes and communities, their quality of life, their property values, the soaring taxes they bear to pay for

sprawl, and the overall health of their State.

___________________________________________________________________________________

[Note: Repetition is deliberate. Each response is intended to be complete.]

While there is debate over Florida’s future rate of population growth in the light of recent net losses,

Amendment 4 recognizes that growth can happen. If we are to accommodate additional population, we need

to plan where growth will occur, if we’re to prevent further degradation of our quality of life. And this landuse

plan must be upheld, and not changed based on a developer’s whim or hot investment opportunity.

Indeed, under Amendment 4, there will still be plenty of construction and growth. Florida’s local land-use

plans, if added together, call for the addition of homes to house 100 million people (Florida’s present

population is about 18 million). These homes will be built in areas already designated “residential” on our

land-use plans -- not in wetlands, on beaches, or other inappropriate places. Thus there are more than

enough opportunities already approved on our land-use plans, to provide the development industry with

plenty of space to build, develop, and redevelop. Development compatible with our land-use plans will not

be subject to a citizen vote, only development that violates our land use plan.

Note that the study that provided the ‘100 million’ number, by adding all comp plan provisions together, was

Florida has gone through the biggest developer-driven boom in its history. All the while, elected

representatives have been approving developers’ changes to communities’ land-use plans at an astonishingly

rapid rate, with virtually no denials.

Other construction work will arise from the new green features soon to be mandated for existing housing --

features such as solar heat and gray-water re-use -- that will provide new jobs for entrepreneurs, builders, and

construction workers.

9

New residential housing adds job-seekers to our local economy without adding the permanent, productive

jobs that they need and want. Maintaining attractive communities, as Amendment 4 will permit us to do, is

key to inducing good businesses with diversified, productive, permanent jobs to relocate their facilities to our

communities.

There will be no shortage of construction jobs with the type of rationally planned growth that Amendment 4

will make possible, once we can get our overbuilt, devastated economy revived.

Land speculation, overbuilding, and irresponsible mortgage lending have crashed Florida’s economy worse

than has happened in most other states, leaving us with 300,000 empty and abandoned houses, and 440,000

homes in danger of foreclosure. Florida’s economy has had one of the worst declines of any state because of

our state’s over-reliance on population growth and residential development..

The only solution proposed by Florida’s developers, financiers, and land speculators is more-of-the-same.

They want to continue the same building, paving, and sprawl, at taxpayers’ expense. They pass the burden

to taxpayers of the resulting blighted neighborhoods, crowded roads, and the cost of the new infrastructure

and additional services needed for the developers’ new housing tracts, which don’t pay their way.

As an example, just a few years ago the Port St. Lucie area was called (by the NY Times) “the fastestgrowing

economy” in the fastest-growing state. Nowadays it’s an area with a severely depressed economy –

with rapidly increasing taxes to pay for the damage done by overdevelopment, decreasing home values, and

a declining quality of life.

Here’s how Amendment 4 works: When developers wish to change our publicly approved local

Comprehensive Land-Use Plans (“comp plans”), and after their proposed change receives local-government

approval, the change will then go to the community’s voters for approval – as a final step – at the next

General Election.

10

There is no significant expense involved. Amendment 4 issues will be printed on the ballots issued at our

general elections. Planning major developments takes years in any case, but if a developer finds that he/she

cannot wait for the next election, the developer can call for, and pay for, a special election or a mail-in

election, if this proves cost-effective for the developer. If a majority of voters casting ballots votes “yes,”

then the plan change would be adopted; if a majority votes “no,” then the plan change is rejected. This is,

very clearly, democracy in action.

There is nothing new or dangerous about entrusting ordinary citizens with complex decisions. We already

vote on referenda, for example, on bond issues, local taxes, annexations, and local “home rule charters.”

The competence of voters receives an additional – and perhaps its greatest -- test when voters are selected to

serve on a jury. Our juries are entrusted with finding the truth in complex matters, both civil and criminal,

that may involve billions of dollars in damages or even the death penalty. By contrast, an Amendment 4

land-use proposal is a very simple matter. Before reaching the ballot, a land-use change will already have

been vetted extensively by government officials and staff. In addition, it will have been the subject of public

hearings.

Voters are certainly competent to vote. As the Environmental & Land Use Center states in its endorsement

of Amendment 4:

The notion that the voters can’t understand basic facts about community and environmental impacts

affecting their lives is offensive. Currently, the facts and the opinions of informed expert planners are

frequently ignored by the politicians, in favor of the dominant political interests. . . . The state’s

political structure has failed the trust and responsibility granted to it by the people, who almost

assuredly can do a better job if they take that power back.

Regarding numbers of ballot items, Amendment 4’s opposition misuses the numbers it comes up with. In

order to update a local Land-Use Plan – as required at 10-year intervals by State law – there may be many

small changes, even “hundreds,” as Floridians for Smarter Growth contends. But when the Comp Plan’s

revision reaches the ballot, it becomes just ONE ballot item, in the same way that it was one voting-agenda

item when it came before local government officials.

Likewise, proposed changes relating to a specific development project become ONE ballot item.

In summary, under Amendment 4, citizens vote on packages of changes in the same configuration as the

elected officials voted. Those who say there’d be hundreds of changes are focusing on the number of

changes in the packages, not the number of votes. A comp plan update or a capital improvements project

could encompass 100-400 changes; however the number of votes would be only one.

11

These ‘packages’ of changes will be available and publicly scrutinized long before they appear on the ballot.

Residents will be readily able to form their own opinions from the research and hearings conducted by city

or county professional staff and elected officials, as well as presentations by community groups, and a wide

variety of other sources: e.g., the media, civic and environmental groups, and others dedicated to

ascertaining and protecting the public welfare.

The US Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have consistently held that there is no conflict

between direct democracy and our representative form of government, and that the two have coexisted

throughout history.

In Florida, as elsewhere, State law and most municipal charters provide for three types of direct democracy:

initiative (petition), referendum, and recall. Voters are regularly called on to vote directly on issues, e.g.,

bonding or taxing issues. It makes sense that voters should have the final say at the ballot box over decisions

that will directly impact their lives, their tax dollars and their community for years to come.

As an example of a referendum, we vote on our taxes, and do not entrust this issue to the same people who

create the tax-spending plan. Even more important to us than our money, however, are our communities and

families, our home values and property rights. We need a say in those too, especially given Florida

politicians’ propensity to side with developers. (Florida is #1 for political corruption – by far – in the nation,

according to the NY Times of 12/14/08.)

Amendment 4 opponents try to say that we’ll have to vote on whether someone can locate a mailbox or a

restaurant in a particular spot on land that they own. Not true. Such matters are zoning matters, and have

nothing to do with Comprehensive Land-Use Plans and Amendment 4.

Comprehensive plans are higher-level, larger-area plans that set forth only the broadest outlines of

permissible land use, such as where ‘urban’ densities and intensities will be allowed. Examples of Comp

Plan changes would be

12

a.) turning farmland across the river into a 5,000 home residential community,

b.) building a new prison, hospital, sewage plant, or trash landfill in a residential area, or

c.) erecting high-rise hotels next to someone’s home.

The Zoning Code relates to smaller-scale parcels and is unaffected by Amendment 4, as are building permits

and variances.

3a. A4 supporters are a “special interest.”

What Amendment 4 supporters have in common is their concern at the overdevelopment and sprawl that is

occurring all over the State, and their lack of a voice in their government to stop it. FHD’s Amendment 4,

now on the November 2010 ballot, restores good land-use planning, and government of, by, and for the

people.

FHD began some 5 years ago, and obtained – thanks to donations and volunteer efforts – over 1 million

Floridians’ signatures on petitions calling for voter referenda on changes to our communities’ publiclyapproved

Land-Use Plans.

FHD has been enthusiastically supported around the State, and has succeeded in getting its amendment onto

the 2010 ballot as Amendment 4 – in spite of its opponents’ huge war-chest of money. Floridians feel that

their local land-use plans are amended so frequently that the whole notion of "growth management" has lost

all meaning. Excessive and inappropriate development has disrupted the homes, lives, and communities of

Floridians, who find there is little they can do to stop this type of development. Amendment 4 gives

residents a new means to enforce responsible, planned growth.

If it is more difficult to amend a plan under Amendment 4, and if developers have to make their case to the

residents, developers will build projects that fit within the existing plan. Citizens won’t constantly have to

‘fight city hall,’ confront big-money interests, and resort – if funds can be found – to expensive lawsuits.

Municipalities, too, will save the inordinate staff time and resources now required to process so many

changes to the carefully produced and publicly approved plan that is supposed, after all, to be

“comprehensive.”

Amendment 4 has the support of major organizations such as Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, the

Humane Society of the United States, Environment Florida, Florida Public Interest Research Group, Florida

Consumer Action Network, Floridians for a Sustainable Population, Clean Water Action, Friends of the

Everglades, Save the Manatee Club, Audubon chapters around the state, as well as local, civic, community

and homeowners organizations.

13

Individual citizens have shown their support for FHD not only by enthusiastically petitioning on street

corners, but also by contributing to the campaign. The Florida Division of Elections website lists 2,426

separate contributions from individuals.

The “special interests” in this case belong, instead, to Amendment 4’s opposition group. In contrast to

Amendment 4’s popular support, the “Floridians for Smarter Growth” group is made up almost exclusively

of development-related businesses such as mortgage bankers, turf-grass growers, chambers of commerce,

and utility contractors.

If new housing developments did add to the tax base, then Floridians would have the lowest taxes in the

country after forty years of explosive growth. New housing developments, in fact, produce a net drain on

municipal funds.

A classic study performed by the American Farmland Trust and published by the ‘1000 Friends of Florida’

organization shows that residential land-use costs local governments at least $1.39 for every $1 of tax

revenue generated by the new residents. Other land uses provide a surplus of revenue – i.e.,

commercial/industrial ($.36 cost-of-community services per $1 revenue), and working/open land ($.42 cost

per $1 revenue) -- and do indeed “increase the tax base.” (See the American Farmland Trust study at

as high as $2.42.

Open land is taxed at a lower rate than housing; so it is often promoted by developers that added tax

collections from new higher-taxed housing units are a “plus” for the community. But in fact, open land uses

no municipal services, and generates net tax revenue. Housing, in contrast, requires schools, roads, safety

services, libraries, parks, utilities, trash and other municipal services. This creates a tax deficit. So despite

high dollar-figures for added tax revenues, we need to focus instead on the cost of services and net result of

additional residential development. The tax shortfall for new housing is picked up by all taxpayers in terms

of higher taxes, or – if the required expenditures are not made – then, for example, in traffic gridlock and

overcrowded schools.

Aren’t developers at least paying for the roads and schools? No, they aren’t. Furthermore, recent legislation

(SB 360) passed by our State legislators last spring enables developers to pay even less than they formerly

did. Prior to the passage of SB 360, developers of large-scale developments (DRIs) were supposed to pay

something towards roads and schools: that is, roads in very close proximity to the development, and land for

schools. Then either taxpayers need to pay for everything else, or our roads and schools become underfunded,

causing the crowding and lower quality of life that we all experience today. With SB 360,

developers have even these costs removed in some cases. A number of Florida municipalities have taken SB

360 to court to try to prevent these ‘gifts’ by legislators to developers from falling on local municipalities

local budgets.

14

Smaller developments are not required to pay even the cost of nearby roads and land for schools. In addition

to further roads and road widening, plus school-building construction and staffing, there are other services

like safety, libraries, trash pickup, etc., which are not addressed by the developer agreements with the local

municipality. These major costs are all borne by the taxpayers.

Where a subdivision has been approved to be developed, in sprawl mode, outside the urban service area,

these costs to local taxpayers are significantly greater. If new construction is located in a town or adjacent to

the urban area, these costs may be reduced by use of existing infrastructure and services, but only if the

existing infrastructure and services can be sufficiently stretched. Creating new services for a new

community is expensive. This is one reason why property tax revenues have not been enough, even though

the taxpayer is paying at a higher and higher rate.

Instead of providing for shared, rational planning, Florida’s local land-use plans have become no more than a

hurdle for developers to overcome in their pursuit of larger, denser, and more profitable projects than the

local residents’ plan allows. These projects are often constructed in locations deemed unsuitable by the

public for such uses. Amendment 4 will change this, restoring the meaning and value of ‘planning’ to the

present process.

The SPB city commission did not follow the process for approving a new land use plan. In particular it

eliminated the citizen-input stage before the citizen vote. Litigation has been filed to challenge the process.

In addition, ballot language was misleading on some of the ballot initiatives, and litigation has challenged

this as well. When elected officials do not follow the processes required by law, the citizens can challenge

their officials.

Unlike the SPB situation, Amendment 4 provides for its public referendum only after a proposed change to

the local Comprehensive Land-Use Plan has gone through a review by State and local professional planners,

planning boards, public hearings, and has then also obtained local government approval. Only those

proposals that have undergone this complete process, and received approval from the local Council or

Commission, reach the ballot, for final scrutiny and voting by the community’s voter-residents.

15

i. Regarding developers’ property rights: When developers buy land, they know what it can be used for.

law, should receive approval only if the proposed change is in the public interest. (Many elected

representatives need to be reminded that they take an oath to uphold and represent “the public interest.”) But

What citizens have been finding, for a very long time, is far different. Developers’ campaign contributions

and other influence can cause politicians to vote in favor of the developers and land speculators, even when a

land-use plan change is clearly not in the public interest.

Amendment 4 corrects the problem of financial influence: if elected representatives do approve a

developer’s request to change the residents’ publicly approved land-use plan, then – as a check-and-balance

– Amendment 4 provides the community with the opportunity at the ballot box to clarify where the “public

interest” lies, and to reject the proposal if it fails that test.

ii. Regarding residents’ property rights: Developers are not the only ones with property rights. Amendment

4 enhances the private property rights of all property owners in the community. It gives voters the ability to

vote against a Comp Plan change they believe would harm their property, detract from the character and

quality of life of the community, or add to their tax burden.

Amendment 4 emphasizes the rights of property owners who are already here – as distinguished from out-ofarea

developers and land speculators. It preserves the character of the communities and neighborhoods in

which we have, in many cases, invested a large part of our life savings. Property owners have a deep stake

in the community, as opposed to land speculators or developers who build yet another strip mall or housing

development, and then take their money to the bank, leaving residents with the higher tax bills, congested

roads, and crowded schools.

When development occurs in compliance with a community’s comprehensive land-use plan, the varying

needs in the community are more balanced in a sustainable manner, and Amendment 4 does not come into

play.

If you relied on the land-use designations of your community’s land-use plan to buy your land and build your

home, you should not, for example, find an industrial or commercial building sprouting up next door because

local politicians approved the developer’s request to change the Plan.

Residents will no longer wake up to see bulldozers installing a shopping center or high-rise apartment house

in the previously ‘residential’ or ‘semi-rural’ or ‘conservation’ land next door, along with parking lots that

drain into their backyard, and bright lights that deprive them of sleep. With Amendment 4, resident-voters

can protect the integrity of their homes and communities when politicians approve land-use changes that are

16

not in their interest. No longer will a costly and prolonged lawsuit be the only option available to residents

threatened with inappropriate development.

[“Taking” of land by government has no relevance to this discussion and pertains to the law of eminent

domain. The law is well established that a “taking” of private property occurs only when the particular landuse

designation attaching to the land deprives the landowner of all reasonable, economically viable use of the

property. That means the landowner can’t do anything with the property. That very rarely happens. The

fact that a landowner can’t do what he wants to with his property does not mean that his land has been

“taken” by the government. That’s why “takings” cases against government over a land-use regulation

rarely succeed.]

This bogus claim should be viewed as an unfair attempt to apply a culturally-loaded term to wrap the debate

in confusion and negativity. Amendment 4 is about democracy and every voter’s participation in promoting

a.) the well-being of their community, and also

b.) the accountability of their elected representatives.

The only person affected by a referendum is a developer who wants

Developers need to play by a community’s rules, or else they must be able to convince a majority that the

developer’s proposed change is in everyone’s best interest.

The assertion that Amendment 4 will reduce the amount of affordable housing is also absurd. Right now,

comprehensive plan changes are being pushed through, in the name of “redevelopment,” to destroy existing

affordable housing (example: manufactured home parks) and replace them with expensive commercial and

residential development. Comprehensive land-use plans are supposed to include an affordable housing

element, but unfortunately, many local governments are not interested in protecting existing affordable

housing or providing for new affordable housing. Concerned citizens need to review the affordable housing

elements of their local plans. If they are insufficient, plan changes should be proposed to strengthen

affordable housing protections.

________________________________________________________________________________

17

industry’s Trojan-horse FHD-look-alike Amendment whose sole purpose is to suppress the democratic

petition process and kill Amendment 4.

In order to kill Amendment 4, opponents have created a group they call “Floridians for Smarter Growth”

(FSG). Their only platform is to stop Amendment 4 so that they can continue doing more building and more

paving, causing more increased taxes, more congestion, etc. For the 2010 ballot, this group is circulating a

petition entitled: “Florida Growth Management Initiative Giving Citizens the Right to Decide Local Growth

developers actually favor giving citizens the right to vote on land-use changes. But you must read the fine

print – which, unfortunately, voters will never see on the ballot. The fine print on their petition says the

opposite of what their petition title promises: in other words, any possibility for voters to have a say in local

growth management is so restricted by the details of this petition that no such vote will ever take place.

To be specific, the FSG petition requires that, for voters to have the say that their petition promises on a

politician-approved land-use change, at least 10% of registered voters in that jurisdiction are required to

drive or march down to either the Supervisor of Elections office or City Clerk’s office (depending

upon where the comp plan issue is located) in order to sign -- in person and with proper ID -- a petition that

someone has initiated to request a referendum. And this effort would need to be completed within 60 days of

the initiation of such a petition. Depending on local population numbers, this could mean hundreds of voters

arriving at a particular government office each day for these 44 business days, during the hours that the

office was open. There would likely not even be sufficient parking! Because of these impossible

restrictions, FSG’s petition, in fact, eliminates the deployed military, handicapped, working public, and many

others from the democratic process altogether.

The developers’ “Smarter Growth” petition simply ensures that no voter referendum on a land-use change

will ever take place. As a final indication of this petition’s real purpose, the Floridians for Smarter Growth

petition’s fine print also states that Amendment 4 fails, even if Amendment 4 passes with the required 60%

of votes!

If FSG now obtains the required number of signed petitions – and who wouldn’t sign a petition with a

promising title like theirs? – their petition will become a “Vote-on-nothing Amendment.” Their Amendment

-- if they get it on the ballot, which they very likely can -- will make it impossible for voters either to petition

(under their Amendment) or to vote (under Amendment 4) on any plan change.

Voters need to steer clear of this petition/amendment and its originators’ cruel deception. It’s little wonder

that supporters of Amendment 4 call their developer-opponents’ platform “stupid growth” with a “Vote on

Nothing” petition/amendment.

18

An excellent reason to support Amendment 4 is the boatloads of money and deceptive, unethical tactics that

developers and land speculators are spending to kill it.

We simply cannot throw up our hands and say, “It’s too late to do anything about Growth Management in

Florida.” Yes, many parts of Florida are now awful and close to unlivable. But it’s not too late to save

certain places from unplanned overdevelopment and sprawl, and it’s certainly not too late to regulate

redevelopment. People don’t want their parks paved over, their beaches redeveloped with high-rise condos,

or their mobile home parks ripped out from under their homes, leaving them with no affordable alternatives.

Things will continue to get worse unless something is done.

Not to support Amendment 4 now, and not to vote “yes” on Amendment 4 in November 2010 is to take the

side of the developer-controlled status quo, and to stand by and witness the further ruination of our quality of

life, the natural environment, and government accountability in Florida.

Amendment 4 is the check-and-balance that Florida’s democratic system has heretofore lacked. It provides

the people with a veto power over the undue influence of developers on our politicians. It’s the way to avoid

harmful changes being made to our publicly approved Land-Use Plans, changes that result in a boom-andbust

economy, ever-higher taxes, lower property values, congested roads and schools, and a lower quality of

life for all Floridians.

- - - - - - - - - - -

19

Addendum: A final word from President Jefferson and Wilson:

"I am not among those who fear the people." (Letter to Sam Kercheval, 1816.) Similarly he tells John Taylor,

"the further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government the

ingredient of republicanism . . . the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights."

In 1812, Jefferson advised F.A.Van der Kemp: "The only orthodox object of the institution of government is

to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it . . .

unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these

will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals. . .

selected for the trust."

"I believe in the Initiative and Referendum which should be used not to destroy representative government

but to correct it whenever it becomes mis-representative."

- - - - - - - - - - -