Coverage of Florida Constitutional Amendments: Number 4

Over the next couple of days I'm going to put in my two cents on the Florida ballot.

Florida Constitutional Amendment Number 4 as written on a sample ballot:

NO. 4
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE II, SECTION 7

Referenda Required For Adoption And Amendment Of Local Government
Comprehensive Land Use Plans

Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land 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. The amendment’s impact on local government expenditures cannot be estimated precisely. Local governments will incur additional costs due to the requirement to conduct referenda in order to adopt comprehensive plans or amendments thereto. The amount of such costs depends upon the frequency, timing and method of the referenda, and includes the costs of ballot preparation, election administration, and associated expenses. The impact on state government expenditures will be insignificant.

Take a peek at what land use requirements are all about.

Adopted by the 1985 Legislature, The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (see Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes) - also known as Florida's Growth Management Act - requires all of Florida's 67 counties and 410 municipalities to adopt Local Government Comprehensive Plans that guide future growth and development. Comprehensive plans contain chapters or "elements" that address future land use, housing, transportation, infrastructure, coastal management, conservation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental coordination, and capital improvements. A key component of the Act is its "concurrency" provision that requires facilities and services to be available concurrent with the impacts of development.

The pros and cons of this are debatable depending on who you are and how your local government is effecting you in relation to your property.

I'm going to break this down to extremely an extremely simple level. I have seen where most of the proponents of this amendment are sighting the housing market issues as a reason for slowing growth through amendment 4. I don't find this argument valid considering that nearly every state had housing problems. I also don't think that over development is the real reason behind the push for this amendment. Let me explain.

In Florida there have been quite a few issues with imminent domain, where people who didn't want to sell their property were forced to because their city or county claimed it would benefit the "common good" through an increase in tax revenue. This increase would be due to either property value increases, because of development, or local sales taxes if turned into a shopping area. What actually happened was that the government seized the land and reassigned its "use" as commercial or residential. The government then sold the land to a private entity, business or developer, claiming the increase in tax revenue was a benefit to the common good. Of course this is not the intent of the laws surrounding the use of imminent domain. But here in good-ole Florida judges have ruled almost every time in favor of the government. Amendment 4 would put a stop to this. The city or county would not be able to reassign the land's "use" without a vote by the public. This would keep land from being seized because there would be a much greater possibility that the land's "use" would remain unchanged. Even if it were changed it could take years.

While fighting imminent domain abuse is a good thing, it does not outweigh the negative aspects of this proposed legislation. What if someone wants to sell their land to a developer? Amendment 4 will restrict the rights of the land owner by making future development solely a public matter. Amendment 4 will result in slower development in all areas. Florida will no longer be seen as a business friendly state because of the red tape and time delays required to build. Could you imagine purchasing a plot of land without knowing what you can do with it or when? Now imagine you own a business; would that level of uncertainty make you feel good about land purchases?

A better idea would be to get rid of the liberal judges who purposely misconstrue the meaning of select laws.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.