Great news for the association and attorney Berger. She will wholeheartedly endorse Amendment 4 when she corrects the errors she is promulgating (specifically, the lies the developers are trying to scare us with) in her 'negative aspects of Amendment 4' section. Every point she lists is in fact incorrect: Here are her points, and -- in caps -- the correction. * Economic development would be stalled at a time that the State can least afford it. [OVERDEVELOPMENT HAS CRASHED OUR ECONOMY AND MADE FLORIDA A NATIONAL PARIAH. NEW BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRIES WILL WANT TO RELOCATE HERE ONLY WHEN WE HAVE SENSIBLE LAND-USE PLANNING, WHICH MEANS ADHERING TO OUR LAND-USE PLANS. CURRENTLY PAID-OFF POLITICIANS APPROVE ALL THE PLAN CHANGES THAT DEVELOPERS WISH, THEREBY CREATING PLUMMETING PROPERTY VALUES AND HIGHER TAXES (FOR THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE) FOR THE REST OF US. ALSO, THE MOST POLITICALLY CORRUPT STATE IN THE NATION. GIVEN THIS TRACK RECORD, WHAT BUSINESS WOULD WANT TO START UP HERE? * The proposed amendment undermines the whole proposition of electing public officials to vote on behalf of their constituencies as it takes away their discretion in many instances with regard to land use. NOT AT ALL. WE ALREADY VOTE ON TAXES, BOND ISSUES, ETC. LAND-USE IS WHAT DRIVES OUR TAXES. WE DESERVE TO VOTE ON THIS TOO. ANYWAY, OUR POLITICIANS HAVE PROVEN THAT THEY REPRESENT THE DEVELOPERS (AND PAYOLA), NOT US RESIDENTS. * The costs of conducting elections for every proposed land use plan would be huge. NONSENSE. ANY LAND-USE CHANGES THAT THE POLS OK TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE LAND-USE PLANS WILL SIMPLY APPEAR ON THE NEXT BALLOT. COST? ZERO, OR PERHAPS A LITTLE INK. THAT'S IT! * It will be nearly impossible for voters to approve such changes and government officials to approve such elections absent the most extraordinary circumstances, essentially freezing current land use. NONSENSE AGAIN. VOTERS OF A COMMUNITY WILL KNOW WHETHER THEY WANT A SPRAWL-MART BUILT IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, OR A HUGE NEW CITY ON THEIR WETLANDS. OR MORE OF THE PRESENT CROWDING OF OUR ROADS AND SCHOOLS, WATER SHORTAGES, SOARING TAXES, PLUMMETING PROPERTY VALUES, ETC. Please, Ms Burger, do your fact-checking, and write a correction so that your constituents may be correctly advised. (Otherwise, you'll be associated with the Chamber/Developer/Crooked-Politician crowd who're handing out this misinformation. And none of us believe them!)
1 comment:
Great news for the association and attorney Berger. She will wholeheartedly endorse Amendment 4 when she corrects the errors she is promulgating (specifically, the lies the developers are trying to scare us with) in her 'negative aspects of Amendment 4' section. Every point she lists is in fact incorrect: Here are her points, and -- in caps -- the correction.
* Economic development would be stalled at a time that the State can least afford it. [OVERDEVELOPMENT HAS CRASHED OUR ECONOMY AND MADE FLORIDA A NATIONAL PARIAH. NEW BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRIES WILL WANT TO RELOCATE HERE ONLY WHEN WE HAVE SENSIBLE LAND-USE PLANNING, WHICH MEANS ADHERING TO OUR LAND-USE PLANS. CURRENTLY PAID-OFF POLITICIANS APPROVE ALL THE PLAN CHANGES THAT DEVELOPERS WISH, THEREBY CREATING PLUMMETING PROPERTY VALUES AND HIGHER TAXES (FOR THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE) FOR THE REST OF US. ALSO, THE MOST POLITICALLY CORRUPT STATE IN THE NATION. GIVEN THIS TRACK RECORD, WHAT BUSINESS WOULD WANT TO START UP HERE?
* The proposed amendment undermines the whole proposition of electing public officials to vote on behalf of their constituencies as it takes away their discretion in many instances with regard to land use.
NOT AT ALL. WE ALREADY VOTE ON TAXES, BOND ISSUES, ETC. LAND-USE IS WHAT DRIVES OUR TAXES. WE DESERVE TO VOTE ON THIS TOO. ANYWAY, OUR POLITICIANS HAVE PROVEN THAT THEY REPRESENT THE DEVELOPERS (AND PAYOLA), NOT US RESIDENTS.
* The costs of conducting elections for every proposed land use plan would be huge. NONSENSE. ANY LAND-USE CHANGES THAT THE POLS OK TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE LAND-USE PLANS WILL SIMPLY APPEAR ON THE NEXT BALLOT. COST? ZERO, OR PERHAPS A LITTLE INK. THAT'S IT!
* It will be nearly impossible for voters to approve such changes and government officials to approve such elections absent the most extraordinary circumstances, essentially freezing current land use. NONSENSE AGAIN. VOTERS OF A COMMUNITY WILL KNOW WHETHER THEY WANT A SPRAWL-MART BUILT IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, OR A HUGE NEW CITY ON THEIR WETLANDS. OR MORE OF THE PRESENT CROWDING OF OUR ROADS AND SCHOOLS, WATER SHORTAGES, SOARING TAXES, PLUMMETING PROPERTY VALUES, ETC.
Please, Ms Burger, do your fact-checking, and write a correction so that your constituents may be correctly advised. (Otherwise, you'll be associated with the Chamber/Developer/Crooked-Politician crowd who're handing out this misinformation. And none of us believe them!)
Post a Comment