"Florida should expand the use of two growth management pilot programs to provide the state with a new focus on large-range planning and the needs of critical areas, Department of Community Affairs Secretary Billy Buzzett said last Tuesday." Note: Buzzett is a former executive with St. Joe Paper Co, the largest land owner in the State of Florida.
"Nancy Linnan offered a presentation on behalf of a Florida Chamber of Commerce's effort to draft a proposal to reform state growth management laws. Other groups supporting the effort are Associated Industries of Florida, the Association of Florida Community Developers, the Florida Association of Home Builders and the Florida Land Council." Read more at The Florida Tribune.
Do you possibly think now that Rick Scott is Governor, that the State will be protected from sprawl? The deck is stacked against smart growth and protecting our State from developers and the Chamber of Commerce's greed on the pretense that growth will produce jobs and jobs are more important than our quality of life.
As George Niemann says, "Many communities are now suffering from congested roads, overcrowded schools, severe water restrictions, declining home values, as well as, real estate taxes that are still too high.
At the root of this problem is the fact that many of our elected officials base their growth decisions on extraneous factors, instead of focusing on what should be the primary decision-making factor — the desires and the best welfare of the citizens who already live in that community.
The vast majority of growth plan changes from the private sector are initiated by business interests, not by your average property owner. If the growth plan doesn't fit the business plan of the developer, they try to modify the growth plans to fit their business need."
Amendment 4 would have been a protection for all of us--we would have had the right to vote on the development if the land-use had been changed by politicians. Also, follow the money--look to see what organizations endorse a candidate. If it is the Chamber of Commerce, Realtors Association, builders groups and the like, run like hell.
It still IS the answer. Just not for a representative form of government. Let the people vote on everything, I say....
ReplyDeleteAmendment 4 was allowing the people to vote on what they wanted in their neighborhood when it came to land-use changes. That is very representative..allowing the people to vote.?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???
ReplyDeleteTrying to remember the golden rule always.... I am the first commenter above. You and I are diametrically opposed on this issue. I have commented many times and am passionate about not allowing a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT with so many unknowns that it could devastate our state and be just as hard to change back as it is to have it pass.
ReplyDeleteYou needed more than a majority. The pregnant pig issue is now part of our constitution! We voted on class size without knowing the fiscal impact or our ability to meet the criteria and at what cost?
We also voted to proceed with the high speed train.
Voters often are not as informed as you or I. They are swayed by the best looking person or the best feel good campaign.
What you and your neighbors accomplished with the sunset issue is (eventually) how the system is supposed to work. You kicked out the bums and got change with your new representatives. Good for you and your neighbors. If I had to vote on that issue, I probably would have voted against you and your neighbors. ( and I heard both sides) It didn't affect me where I live and I thought that sitting next to Murray Hills, this type of development fit. I was at commission meetings where your representatives let you down and I was at the meeting when you and your neighbors won.
It is sausage in the making, but in this case, the end product is pretty good..... So far....
The system as it is stinks... but it is much better than what 4 would have done. And I didn't call anyone a turd :o)