FFRP Opposes Amendment 4 on Policy and Process
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.
ANALYSIS: At first blush, a movement touting direct democracy (in which governmental decisions are made by public referenda) might seem consistent with traditional American democratic principles. However, America’s Founding Fathers established a representative democracy because it allows for thoughtful consideration of complex issues and requires elected officials to balance competing interests, rather than simply relying on popular opinion. In short, it protects long-term individual rights against the whim of a temporary majority.
While we respect the initiative process as an important aspect of self-government, we believe that complex and far-reaching issues like land use management are best adjudicated through the traditional protections afforded to us by the legislative process. If more than 200 years of American history is not evidence enough, California presents a real-time case study in direct democracy. Governing by referendum ensures decisions that are short-term in focus, inconsistent with existing goals and laws, and based on sound bites and other incomplete information.
Growing public frustration over the perception that their interests are not being protected is understandable and the fear that in too many cases the development community has exercised undue influence over the process is justified. However, Amendment 4 is the wrong solution to a legitimate problem. Our opposition is predicated on the following: Read more…
