Comment Up
"When a developer makes an offer that, if accepted, would violate the word of elected officials and the will of voters, the developer has to show that the offer would serve a greater public purpose. The idea is to present something that sounds so beneficial that those elected officials can't refuse, even if it breaks a promise sealed with the public's money," so says the editorial in today's Palm Beach Post.
This is exactly what we have been saying for years and exactly the reason why we so desperately need Amendment 4. Bad decisions for our State have been made from the Dais and it is time that changes.
The Post seems to be "getting it" and we are still waiting for them to endorse Florida Hometown Democracy in spite of their advertising dollars they make from developers, Realtors and members of the Chamber of Commerce.
Give the people a voice. Vote YES on Amendment 4 this November.
The taxpayers should have the right to say yes or no to growth in their communities BEFORE they are forced to pay for it.Development DOES NOT PAY FOR ITSELF!!!! Politicians in Florida do what is best for the people who paid for them to get into office, not the people who voted them into office.Entire neighborhoods and residents quality of life should not be destroyed so that paid off Commissioners and city staff members get a check under the table . Vote yes on Amendment 4 .
ReplyDeleteLynn, thanks for stopping by my blog and leaving a comment. http://blog.ozeanmedia.com.
ReplyDeleteWhile we disagree on the proposed amendment, I thank you for making a comment without calling anyone a name. I can not say the same for some of the others that agree with your position.
Lynn, the Palm Beach Post continues its watchdog approach to local issues. Good for them.
ReplyDeleteBUT, perhaps you've forgotten the fact that Post has already opined on Amendment 4 and they, as do 17 other papers across the Sunshine State, think it is a bad idea because it is.
Here's their editorial: http://tinyurl.com/32ah8gw
Now, in case you missed their response to Lesley Blackner's falsehoods regarding the scope of Amendment 4 - here's that one, too - http://tinyurl.com/386cztc
The fact is that the Post is opposed to Amendment 4 with good reason. It doesn't work. St. Pete Beach's three year long experiment proves that.
I agree with you that the system isn't perfect and it has flaws but the proffered solution is far, far worse and its negative implications for our state are too great.
Vote NO on 4.
Are you suggesitng that the PB Post or other media are experts and know what in heck they are talking about here?
ReplyDeleteWhat really happened in St. Pete Beach
by Harry Metz
Former St. Pete Beach City Commissioner hmetz@tampabay.rr.com
The developer and developer-allied opponents of Amendment 4 (Florida Hometown Democracy) have been misrepresenting what actually happened in St. Pete Beach. claims incorrectly link Amendment 4 on the November 2010 ballot with the turmoil in my city over the past three years. I offer this factual report so that any future reference to St. Pete Beach will be accurate.
Their primary misrepresentation is that the litigation in St. Pete Beach has something to do with Florida Hometown Democracy’s Amendment 4. Actually, if we had had Amendment 4 in place, none of the conflict would have taken place.
The St. Pete Beach litigation is all about developers who wanted to build 15-story hotels on our waterfront and triple the population density of our small island community. Many residents strongly oppose this. The litigation that resulted dealt with the developers attempt to submit their own comprehensive land-use plan to the voters without complying with the Florida Growth Management Act. It had nothing to do with Hometown Democracy.
The developer-controlled St. Pete Beach city commission mis-used the City’s ordinance-initiative process to submit changes to our city’s land-use plan in a public referendum without going through the Growth Management requirements. The developer-controlled city commission ignored state law.
Entire areas of St. Pete Beach were rezoned by these developer initiatives. The individuals whose property was rezoned had no public notice, nor were they able to voice any objection at public hearings prior to the vote, as required by the Growth Management Act. Had the Hometown Democracy amendment been in place, this could not have happened.
The citizens naturally sued.
In the first lawsuit, the court ruled that Florida’s Growth Management Act procedures must be followed, and that the commission could not use the ordinance-initiative provision to change the land-use plan. But the city and the developers ignored the court’s order. A motion for contempt was filed as a result. None of this had anything to do with Amendment 4.
The second lawsuit against the city asserted that the ballot language for these ordinances misrepresented them, with the intention of deceiving the voters. For example, in one ballot summary, there was a statement that the ordinance would implement “green initiatives,” when in fact there was not one word about green initiatives in the body of the ordinance. Another proposed ordinance increased allowable building height from 50 to 164 feet, which was not even mentioned in the ballot summary, nor was there any mention of the tripling of density that the initiatives would achieve. Much of the legal expense incurred by the city relates to the ballot language case. Again, nothing to do with Amendment 4.
Until now, almost all that has been written in an attempt to tie litigation in St. Pete Beach to Florida Hometown Democracy has been ginned up by developers who, as we well know, will use any artifice to attain their goals.
Much of the misleading information was supported by Ward Friszolowski, a former St. Pete Beach mayor. Currently executive VP of an architectural and planning firm, he has a vested interest in defeating Amendment 4, which gives a community’s voters veto power over inappropriate development.
Harry Metz
Former St. Pete Beach City Commissioner
St. Pete Beach
Wait, I am confused. First, you write you hope the Post will endorse the extreme Vote on Everything Amendment 4. Then, upon learning they have already come out in opposition, you criticize them. So, if they had endorsed this bad idea would they know what they were talking about? Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Mr. Metz - he raises some of the very reasons to vote against Amendment 4. For starters, you can't condense down a comprehensive plan amendment, that is typically analyzed in a staff report that can be over an inch thick, into 75 words or less - someone won't be happy. And, that someone will sue. But, then the proponents of Amendment 4 know that - in fact, they make their living doing just that suing. So, let's talk about what Amendment 4 does and has done in St. Pete Beach - it increases lawsuits.
Then, he talks about process. Ah yes, please tell me where in the ballot language does it define the process? It doesn't. But, again, this is intentional because when Lake Worth interprets it one way, they'll get sued - "sorry, wrong way". Just like Palm Beach County will and each of other 37 municipalities here. The amendment is so poorly written that reasonable, smart people will disagree. Vote NO on 4. Don't experiment with our state's future.
Oh yes, I think the City Manager is an authority on this issue. Let's see what he said (comes from the Post editorial) ...
St. Pete Beach City Manager Mike Bonfield bemoans the vote-on-everything approach. It meant putting before voters a five-year capital improvement plan that contained no local projects or local spending. Yet 25 percent of the voters, Mr. Bonfield said, rejected it.
Anyway you slice it, Amendment 4 is bad. Vote NO on 4.