Floridians For Responsible Policy – FFRP

BACKGROUND: The appropriateness of infrastructure investment in our nation’s cities has been a hot topic of debate for much of our history. Ever since the American Revolution, the ways in which our governments raise and spend tax money has been a defining public policy issue. The interplay of these two concepts – essentially how Government invests our tax dollars – has been an underpinning in our national dialogue and framed the context for many elections in our history.

That conversation becomes even more heated during times of economic trouble, when citizens rightly intensify their scrutiny of how Government is performing as a steward of their tax dollars. Today, we see that same dynamic playing out across the country, as a crumbling national infrastructure comes face to face with the realities of an economic recession that has limited prospects for major improvement in the near future.

However, despite economic uncertainty, cities and local governments still have to find ways to continue investing in their communities, in competition with other locations, to make them places where people want to live, work and raise their families. Maintaining basic urban infrastructure such as roads and utilities are critical. But study after study has demonstrated that quality of life investments are also important to maintaining population and attracting and keeping high wage jobs. In fact, as cities such as Atlanta and Charlotte have demonstrated, there are few investments governments make that yield as significant a return as building and enhancing cultural, civic and other community venues.

ANALYSIS: Any time government chooses to invest in infrastructure other than schools, roads, jails, water treatment plants or other essential projects, the public should take special interest. It is essential that such projects are debated by and justified to the taxpayers. The merits of such investments are often subjective, and what is one taxpayer’s “gem” is another’s “boondoggle”. Elected officials must weigh the pros and cons of such investments to come to an educated decision on a “return” for the taxpayer and governing entity. However, unlike the private sector where a “return” is easily calculated on spreadsheet, governments and elected officials must more appropriately consider a return, not only for the governing entity, but for the taxpayers. This is a complex exercise.

The Dr. Phillips Performing Arts Center (DPAC) in Downtown Orlando is an interesting case in point, as are other similar large scale projects like arenas, stadiums or convention centers. Click to Read More

Orlando, FL – Voters in the City of Orlando strongly support SunRail – the commuter line that would run from Sanford to Kissimmee, linking Winter Park, Florida Hospital, Downtown Orlando and Orlando Regional Medical Center – by a huge margin according to the results of a new city-wide poll commissioned by Floridians for Responsible Policy (FFRP). Additionally, a majority of voters in the City of Orlando also support building the Dr. Phillips Performing Arts Center (DPAC).

The poll, which was conducted April 25 – 28 by Frederick Polls sampled 400 registered voters in the City of Orlando, shows that 76% support SunRail, while only 17% oppose the system and 68% of those polled believe that traffic congestion can’t be solved with more roads and that “commuter rail is needed to help solve the problem.”

Additionally, a majority of voters support building the Dr. Phillips Performing Arts Center in Downtown Orlando by a margin of 51% who support, 38% oppose and 7% undecided/did not answer. Additional positive factors for DPAC include: Click to Read More

Floridians for Responsible Policy Opposes Amendment 4 – “Hometown Democracy”

BACKGROUND: The proposed “Amendment 4” to Florida’s constitution would require a public referendum on any amendment to a local government’s Comprehensive Plan. Amendment 4 was drafted by a group of activists under the banner “Hometown Democracy” with the stated goal of “giving voters veto power over changes to a local community’s master plan for growth.”

Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985 required every local government to adopt a Comprehensive Plan to serve as its framework for managing growth and making land use decisions. Comprehensive Plans are regularly amended to accommodate new and expanded businesses, protect environmentally sensitive lands, establish public parks, address state and federal requirements, and to implement public improvements such as commuter and high speed rail.

Amending a Comprehensive Plan requires multiple public hearings, review by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (“DCA”), and adoption by local government. Amendments require balancing a variety of interest – most importantly the public interest – by analyzing complex, interrelated issues involving urban planning, the environment, traffic, utilities, schools, public facilities, economic development, and the law.

While many feel that the current growth management framework lacks public involvement and critical input, Amendment 4 would exacerbate the very problems it seeks to fix and likely further alienate citizens who seek to participate in the growth management debate. Click to Read More

Orlando Sentinel Senior Editorial Writer Paul Owens weighs in on FFRP’s recent position paper on offshore oil drilling…

Republican state Rep. Dean Cannon, the incoming speaker of the Florida House, told the Sentinel recently that he’d like to see his plan to open up state waters to oil and gas rigs handled in a special session so the state could begin pocketing the proceeds ASAP. But this week, a representative for the lead group pushing the plan said the money isn’t likely to show up in state coffers for another three years. That certainly argues against rushing the plan.

So does a recent statement from Floridians for Responsible Policy, a public policy group founded by two Orlando businessmen, Roger Chapin and Joe Kefauver. FFRP says it considers offshore drilling “a legitimate component of a comprehensive national energy policy” but it opposes efforts to “hastily force such an important issue through the legislative process without a thorough and detailed public vetting. If offshore drilling is really merited, then it should be able to stand the test of reasoned debate in the full light of day.” To which I’d add, “Amen.”

Lest FFRP be pigeonholed as left-leaning for opposing the fast-tracking of Cannon’s plan, it also has issued statements opposing the No. 1 priority of organized labor, the bill in Congress that would let unions organize without secret-ballot elections. Questioning Cannon’s plan isn’t a liberal position — just a sensible one.

Floridians for Responsible Policy Opposes Plan to Fast-Track Off-Shore Oil Drilling

BACKGROUND: As our planet’s natural energy resources become increasingly scarce, the United States faces extreme competition from other established and developing countries for those precious resources. As the nation struggles to coalesce around a comprehensive strategy, governments and private interests are increasingly pursuing more parochial solutions to their immediate energy needs and as such, are gradually complicating the ability of our country to pursue a coordinated energy policy. The country faces serious decisions going forward whether to pursue nuclear energy, expand drilling for petroleum products, exploring wind and solar technologies and of course, serious energy conservation measures.

ANALYSIS: Accordingly, we have an obligation to examine any and all energy options as part of a comprehensive national energy strategy that protects the country’s energy future. It would be irresponsible to pursue a national energy security policy that does not acknowledge the important role of domestically-produced petroleum whether it be from on-shore or off. However, it would be equally irresponsible to recklessly auction off parcels of our ocean floor to petroleum producers without a thoughtful reasoned debate that rightfully recognizes the costs and benefits of such action. Click to Read More

Special To The Tampa Tribune

A small group of Senate Democrats has expressed a willingness to drop what may be the most contentious piece of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA): the “card-check” provision that would take away American workers’ right to a private ballot when determining whether to form a union.

While we applaud their newly found clarity on the issue, it does not make this bill any less dangerous for American businesses and American workers. Click to Read More

The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board weighs in on the latest version of EFCA:

Desperate to keep the so-called Employee Free Choice Act alive, supporters in the U.S. Senate have cut out its heart — a provision that would let unions represent workplaces without first winning majority support from employees in secret-ballot elections.

There are worthier provisions in the legislation, such as stricter enforcement of laws against intimidating or firing workers for union activities. But unless supporters bend more on the objectionable parts, the Senate should kill the bill.

The New York Times is reporting that a half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop the card check provision from legislation currently pending in the U.S. Senate.

“As Democrats, we’re proud of those moderate Senators who stood on principle and fought to protect the rights of workers and uphold the democratic process. We only wish our own Senator would have joined them.” said Joe Kefauver, Co-Founder, Floridians for Responsible Policy.

The Times points out that the abandonment of card check was another example of the power of moderate Democrats to constrain their party’s more liberal legislative efforts. Though the Democrats have a 60-40 vote advantage in the Senate, and President Obama supports the measure, several moderate Democrats opposed the card-check provision as undemocratic.

“It’s time for supporters of the measure to consider that it’s not about counting the votes and muscling legislation through the Congress and just admit that taking away a worker’s right to privacy is just bad public policy,” said Roger Chapin, co-founder of Floridians for Responsible Policy.

Floridians for Responsible Policy today announced that former State Senator and retired United States Marine Colonel Winston W. “Bud” Gardner, PE of Orlando, Florida has added his voice to the growing number of Democrats that oppose the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) pending before the U.S. Congress.

“As someone who has served our country in the military and the halls of the Florida Legislature, I don’t think anyone, and especially Democrats, should be advocating stripping away the rights of workers”, said former State Senator Bud Gardner. “The secret ballot is a hallmark of our Democracy that has served us well and should not be cast aside in an attempt to increase unionization in the workplace.” Click to Read More

Floridians for Responsible Policy today announced that former State Senator Rick Dantzler of Winter Haven, Florida has added his voice to the growing number of Democrats that oppose the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) pending before the U.S. Congress.

“I just can’t figure out why anyone would support eliminating a worker’s right to cast a secret ballot”, said former State Senator Rick Dantzler. “It’s not fair to the employee, and it’s not fair to the employer.” Click to Read More