Since the US Supreme Court heard arguments on the eminent domain/property rights issue last Tuesday, editorial boards across the country, with the exception of the News Journal, of course, have written in support of the homeowners and the Institute of Justice.

Although, there have been some articles that have expressed concern that the Supreme Court may take the wrong course, we have be unable to find any supporting the pro eminent domain side. Today, in their Sunday editions, newspapers across the country are running editorials and stories supporting the homeowners and the Institute of Justice in their fight against this abuse of the fifth amendment. Here is an example from Boston.

	THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

JEFF JACOBY

Will court curb eminent domain?

By Jeff Jacoby | February 27, 2005

BEGINNING his oral argument in Kelo v. City of New London, the Connecticut eminent-domain case the Supreme Court took up last week, Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice puts the stakes bluntly:

‘‘Every home, church, or corner store would produce more jobs and tax revenue if it were a Costco or a shopping mall,’’ he says. If state and local governments can force a property owner to surrender his land so it can be given to a new owner who will put it to more lucrative use, no home or shop in America will ever be safe again.

That’s just what New London wants to do to Bullock’s clients, the last remaining homeowners in the city’s working-class section of Fort Trumbull. When Pfizer, the big pharmaceutical firm, announced in 1998 that it would build a $300 million research facility nearby, the city decided to raze Fort Trumbull’s modest homes and shops so they could be replaced with more expensive properties: offices, upscale condos, a luxury hotel.

But can the government kick people out of their homes or businesses simply to make way for new development?

Under the Bill of Rights, the power of eminent domain may be used only when land is needed for a public use. ‘‘Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,’’ the Fifth Amendment commands. A school, a post office, a right of way for a railroad — those are the kinds of public uses for which property owners have traditionally been made to relinquish their land.

But that isn’t why New London wants to tear down the 112-year-old Victorian that Susette Kelo worked so hard to renovate, or the house at Walbach and East streets where Wilhelmina Dery has lived for all of her 87 years. The city doesn’t want their land for a public facility or a new road. It simply wants the expanded tax base and economic growth that will come with new development. Is that what the Constitution means by ‘‘public use’’ — the trickle-down benefits of private use?

Once, Supreme Court justices would have given short shrift to such a claim.

‘‘The despotic power ..... of taking private property when state necessity requires, exists in every government,’’ Justice William Paterson wrote in a 1795 case, Vanhorn’s Lessee v. Dorrance, but the state must not invoke that power ‘‘except in urgent cases.’’ He could not imagine any situation that would justify ‘‘the seizing of landed property belonging to one citizen, and giving it to another citizen. ..... Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature ..... can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?’’

But there is no echo of Paterson’s spirited defense of property rights as the justices consider Fort Trumbull.

When Bullock argues that New London wants to throw people out of their homes for the sake of ordinary economic development, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why that’s a problem. New London is depressed, she says; what’s wrong with trying to ‘‘build it up and get more jobs?’’ If the city could buy property on the open market and turn it over to a developer, wonders Justice David Souter, why can’t it use eminent domain to achieve the same end? Justice Stephen Breyer notes that there is bound to be some public benefit from almost any land taking. Isn’t that enough to satisfy the Constitution’s ‘‘public use’’ requirement?

It is a depressing colloquy for anyone who believes that property rights are fundamental to liberty. But there is worse to come. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor presses Wesley Horton, the lawyer for New London, on whether eminent domain can really be deployed to condemn any property that could be put to better use.

‘‘For example, a Motel 6,’’ O’Connor says. ‘‘A city thinks, ‘If we had a Ritz-Carlton, we’d get higher taxes.’ Is that OK?’’

‘‘Yes, that’s OK,’’ Horton replies.

Justice Antonin Scalia: ‘‘You can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?’’

Horton: ‘‘Yes, if it’s a significant amount.’’

Got that? Anyone’s property can be taken by eminent domain if the government identifies another owner who could use it to earn a higher profit. New London isn’t alone in making such an outrageous claim. In planning commissions and redevelopment authorities nationwide, the Fifth Amendment’s ‘‘public use’’ requirement has been ignored for years. The question now is whether five Supreme Court justices will agree to kill off this piece of the Bill of Rights for good, or to bring it back to life. The fate of more than just seven Connecticut homeowners is riding on their decision.

Jeff Jacoby’s e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

_________________**________________

31 Mar 04 Sprawl politics
Jeb Bush leading land gluttony

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

[Until recently the author was Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources at the National Governors Association. He now writes and consults and his book "Sprawl Kills - Better Living in Healthy Places" is forthcoming. He can be reached through www.sprawlkills.com.]

Suburban sprawl is the spam of the built environment, it keeps coming, people complain about it, and nobody seems capable of stopping it. Gluttonous land development is ubiquitous. For decades the sprawl industry has used its money and political muscle to keep government subservient to sprawl interests, especially in Florida, whose environmental uniqueness belongs to everyone. Land development is the engine of economic growth in Florida, which has become a developer's dream. That's what happens when a governor has made his fortune in real estate development.

Governor Jeb Bush has not used the state's legal framework to limit sprawl. Say one thing and do the opposite could be the motto for Governor Bush's approach to addressing the ravenous sprawl consuming Florida. As The Washington Post observed in 2002, Florida's governors' "growth management efforts have failed for decades, and Jeb Bush's administration has been especially close to real estate interests." A former attorney for the state, Ross Burnaman, summed it up: "Jeb and his lieutenants are by and large selling the state out."

The sprawl industry has a long history of corrupting government in Florida. The Washington Post reported in 2002 that "Prosecutors showed that Collier County government in the 1990s was basically a developer-run criminal enterprise, with politicians enjoying free golf, envelopes stuffed with cash and even a free wedding reception while rubber-stamping developments and waiving fees." In early 2003 the Orlando Sentinel reported that three commissioners of Lake County, Florida "never met a subdivision they didn't like. They talk 'smart growth.' .Then they vote with developers - the same ones that pour thousands into their campaigns." They had voted to build a sewage treatment plant that would cause an explosion of sprawl by attracting 10,000 new homes in an area where every elementary school was already overcrowded. The Center for Public Integrity revealed that 25 Florida legislators had outside financial interests in real estate and that campaign contributions to state candidates in 1998 from the real estate sector totaled $2.5 million.

Al Hoffman is deemed the most influential Florida developer and has headed an exclusive council of CEOs advising Governor Bush on policy. As to land development, Hoffman has boasted "You can't stop it. There's no power on earth that can stop it." Presumably in his mind that includes voters and government officials. In October 2003 Governor Bush and his Cabinet approved a project for a marina that could handle 100-foot yachts and a 15-story condo with 48 units selling from about $4 million to almost $9 million. Jim Baltzelle, editor of the St. Augustine Record, who attended the meeting, reported "Bush did not mention during the Cabinet meeting that his campaign finance chairman was the developer on the line. Neither did anyone else." Hoffman was also able to get Governor Bush to create in late 2003 the new state Office of Destination Florida so that state funds could be used to attract even more senior citizens to retire in Florida, providing even more business for developers like Hoffman. Hoffman is also active in getting the state to support transport of water from the panhandle to southern Florida to keep the development blitzkrieg moving there.

With the money he funnels to politicians Hoffman has every right to think that nothing can stop runaway sprawl development. He also has been the finance chair for the Republican National Committee and a prodigious fund raiser for the Bush brothers. He is a "Ranger" for President Bush's re-election campaign, because he has bundled at least $200,000 in contributions. Interestingly, in early 2004 out of 165 such Rangers at least 40 percent were connected to the sprawl industry. In November 2003 Hoffman hosted a reception for President Bush at his Fort Myers mansion where some 700 guests paid at least $2,000 a plate; the event raised $2.5 million.

The largest private land owner in Florida is the highly profitable St. Joe Company, with some 850,000 acres, and it has benefited greatly from the Bush brothers. It owns about 3 percent of the sunshine state. At the beginning of the last century it bought land for as little as $2 an acre, and now sells some land for $2 million an acre. Most of its land is in Florida's panhandle which it has renamed Florida's Great Northwest, because a panhandler is someone looking for a handout. And St. Joe is getting handouts from government. Moving roads and building new roads with government money make certain St. Joe parcels of land feasible for development. Hundreds of millions of state and federal dollars will help build infrastructure that St. Joe needs for maximum returns. In November 1999 Governor Bush issued and Executive Order designating eight panhandle counties as "rural Areas of Critical Economic Concern," which opened the floodgates for millions of state dollars for public infrastructure.

And then there is the new Bay County airport it wants in the middle of an isolated forest 20 miles from Panama City. Why? To uncork development on 70,000 acres around the airport, which hardly any objective person thinks is necessary. The existing, relatively new and under-used airport in Panama City would be closed. The Bush brothers have backed the airport project with millions of state and federal dollars already, and 80 percent of the $200 million plus construction cost would come from state and federal funds. St. Joe's Chairman said that the new airport is "essential to unlocking the enormous value of our holdings."

Governor Bush's administration has aided St. Joe's development efforts by shifting growth management powers from the state to local government. In fact, when the governor created a growth management commission he put a St. Joe official on it who argued against laws that would force developers in rural regions like the Panhandle to preserve rural character. The governments in the panhandle have few resources to confront St. Joe's blitzkrieg. In one case, the company wanted 12 acres of state-owned land in Bessant Park in Panama City Beach so it could build a 240-acre complex of restaurants, hotels, theaters and an outlet mall. The city got $2.2 million of state funds which are supposed to be used to provide money for parks and used the money to buy the land from the state and give it to St. Joe.

St. Joe has cleverly sold more than 90,000 acres to the state for $120 million to preserve as green space. In the past five years St. Joe has become the chief recipient of funds from state programs to buy land for conservation. Various reviews have found much of the land overvalued or unsuitable for development anyway. The state set up a special program to allow the company to sell new tracts of land to the state more easily and with less scrutiny than other landowners confront.

When you trace the history of Jeb Bush you discover the beginning of his business success in Florida happened when his father asked a friend to hire him. Armando Codina hired Bush to sell and lease real estate, with a salary in 1981 of $42,408. Then Codina made Bush a partner, giving him 40 percent of the business without any investment of money, and named the company Codina Bush Group. In 1986 Bush's income was over $1 million from the company. In one deal, Bush invested $1,000 in the Museum Tower office development project in downtown Miami. In 1990 he sold his interest for about $346,000. Codina twice welcomed Bush back into the business after Bush quit, first to serve as Florida's Secretary of Commerce and then to run unsuccessfully for governor in 1994. When he left to run for governor he got a payment from the company for nearly $800,000, and the company became the Codina Group. Like Hoffman, Codina is active in Republican politics and communicates regularly with the first President Bush.

Connect the sprawl dots. Over the years Codina and Hoffman have done real estate deals. Codina and Hoffman were Florida electors in the Electoral College that made George W. Bush President. Back in 1997 the St. Joe Company bought one-third of the Codina Group; now they own 50 percent. St. Joe and its officials have also been major contributors to the Republican Party and Bush campaigns. The Chairman of St. Joe, Peter Rummell, is a "Pioneer" for President Bush's re-election campaign, because he has bundled at least $100,000 in contributions. In 2003 Governor Bush's trusted spokeswoman Katie Muniz left to work for St. Joe. St. Joe also hired William Harrison as a lobbyist; he had served as the local chairman of Jeb and George W. Bush's campaigns in the panhandle. And Sam Ard on St. Joe's lobbying team is one of the governor's golfing partners.

Anti-sprawl voices have not proved effective in Florida. Carl Hiaasen has been writing about the sprawling of Florida for many years. In a 1985 Miami Herald column he commented: "This year the Legislature passed a 'growth management' law, supposedly to impose order on the state's tumultuous development. Frankly, the notion of 'orderly growth' is about as tangible as the tooth fairy. Growth that is orderly would break a century-old tradition of lust, greed and wantonness." More recently, St. Petersburg Times writer Bill Maxwell opined in 2003: "The Sunshine State, one of the nation's great treasures, is fast becoming the Asphalt State. What we are doing to our paradise is criminal and, well, stupid." Similarly, Joe Newman of the Orlando Sentinel reported in 2003 "When it comes down to it, no matter how much lip service state and local planners offer against sprawl, they rarely do anything to stop it." Only money explains why Florida politicians have not stopped the sprawl juggernaut.

One way to curb the power and influence of Florida's sprawl lobby is to transfer power from the governments it controls to citizens. There is considerable public discontent with gluttonous land consumption. A survey of Florida citizens by the state in 1999 found that only 8 percent thought the state was very effective in managing growth, 57 percent thought suburban quality of life had declined, and over 75 percent wanted more public involvement in planning and development decisions. Now, these Floridians must act.

Distrust in government caused Florida Hometown Democracy in 2003 to launch a petition drive for a constitutional amendment that would give local voters control over land use changes through referenda, instead of local and state politicians. Lesley Blackner, one of the group's founders, made the case: "We have government by the developer and for the developer. .too many of Florida's elected officials only define the 'public interest' as keeping the development industry happy." If they get the required 500,000 signatures rest assured that the sprawl industry will pour millions of dollars into defeating the amendment in the general election. The group may win, despite opposition from the Florida Home Builders Association and Governor Jeb Bush.

It is crystal clear that long ago developers and corrupt politicians pushed Florida off the 60th floor of sprawl-central. Florida keeps tumbling toward social, fiscal and environmental disaster in bright sunshine for all but the time-blind to see. As in too many other states, laws are passed as window dressing and the sprawl blitzkrieg continues. Perhaps the grassroots Florida Hometown Democracy initiative will wake up Floridians before the sprawl hits the fan and all of Florida's unique natural beauty is lost. If not, most Floridians and visitors will be surrounded by sprawl instead of natural beauty and fighting brutal traffic to get to work, a beach or shopping, while sprawl developers enjoy their waterfront McMansions and yachts in the state they developed to death.

And how do you think Jeb Bush will earn money after he is governor?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edped281032804mar28,1,3556192.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

EDITORIAL from Orlando Sentinel

Leave it alone

Our position: Don't make it harder for voters to change the state's constitution.

Big Brother knows best.

At least, that's what state lawmakers want voters to believe. In fact, Senate President Jim King hopes to leave as his legislative legacy a series of proposals that would make it more difficult for citizens to amend the Florida Constitution.

Like many other lawmakers and Gov. Jeb Bush, Mr. King is alarmed that voters, with increasing regularity, are taking legislative matters into their own hands -- approving constitutional amendments that should have been considered and addressed by lawmakers. And to a certain extent, they're right. Such initiatives as smaller public-school classes, a bullet train and pre-kindergarten for all children could have been addressed by the governor and lawmakers.

But they weren't. So voters reacted. Really, it's as simple as that.

Ideally, changes to the constitution would be limited to altering the structure of government. That's what the constitution is supposed to be -- a framework for government operations.

But proposals floating around the Legislature don't address that issue. Instead, Mr. King would make it harder to amend the constitution by requiring three-fifths of voters to approve amendments instead of a simple majority. Other, far more insidious proposals include applying the super-majority requirement only to citizen initiatives. And Mr. Bush, who despises the very notion of the bullet-train initiative, doesn't want the supermajority to apply to repeal efforts.

How much more unfair can you get?

Citizens aren't solely to blame for corrupting the constitution. Between 1968 and 2002, voters proposed 21 amendments to the state constitution. The Legislature, by contrast, proposed 86 changes during that same period. So who really is out of control here?

Mr. King and his cronies like to say that the process by which citizens can get an issue on the ballot has been co-opted by special interests. That's nonsense. Just look at the legislative process. Campaign contributions and well-heeled lobbyists so control the flow of legislation in Tallahassee that lawmakers often are viewed as mere pawns in the process. Not surprisingly, those very same special-interest groups are now foursquare behind the Legislature's effort to curtail voter access to the constitution.

The truth is, voters now decide whether to approve an amendment or relegate it to the garbage dump. Not special-interest groups.

What's more, getting an initiative on the ballot hardly is the cakewalk that Mr. King would have voters believe.

Of the 47 initiatives circulating around the state for consideration by voters this November, only 12 have reported collecting any signatures of support to the state elections agency. Only two have collected enough signatures to warrant a review by the state attorney general. And not a single initiative has collected anywhere near the 488,722 verified signatures required by Aug. 3 to make it on the fall ballot. Citizen initiatives, too, must pass single-subject and word-length requirements.

If lawmakers and the governors paid a little bit more attention to what voters want -- and a little less attention to the deep-pocketed interests that finance their political careers -- voters wouldn't feel a growing and compelling need to adorn the constitution with all sorts of ancillary ornaments.

As it is, though, none of the legislative proposals restricting the opportunity of voters to amend the constitution warrants further consideration. In this instance, Big Brother needs to re-establish contact with the family.

___________**______________

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/carl_hiaasen/8286358.htm

The Miami-Herald

Carl Hiaasen

Amendment has developers in a panic

A grass-roots move to give Floridians a defining voice in how their communities grow has touched off a backroom panic among some developers, builders and the politicians they own.

The proposed Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment would provide citizens with the final vote on substantial changes to local comprehensive land-use plans .

For example, if the development boundaries in your county were to be altered to make way for an outlet mall, a high-rise condo or a new housing subdivision, the project would go to a public referendum.

Such a radical notion -- giving voters a direct say over projects that affect their lives -- is viewed as pure poison by the special interests that hold power.

''A bad, bad, bad, bad idea,'' fumed a lobbyist for the Florida Home Builders Association. That view was echoed, literally, by Gov. Jeb Bush, who called the Hometown Democracy Amendment ``a great name but a bad idea.''

Still, the measure is well on its way to getting the 50,000 signatures needed before the initiative is reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court. About 489,000 voter signatures must be gathered to put the amendment on a statewide ballot.

It wouldn't be an issue if the state and local governments were doing a responsible job of monitoring growth, but they're not. The so-called Growth Management Act is a polite charade in which the public's input is sought, acknowledged, then often ignored.

Chaotic sprawl

Witness the stampeding fiasco in the Panhandle, which the St. Joe Co. is steamrolling into its own lucrative version of Boca Raton. Long-time residents have seen their concerns brushed aside as local officeholders unabashedly embrace the role of St. Joe cheerleaders. All that's missing are the pom-poms.

Selling out to wealthy developers is a grand tradition in Florida politics. Those who are paving and malling the state throw more money at candidates than do any other groups.

Their high-paid lobbyists and lawyers typically call the shots with county commissions and zoning boards. They're accustomed to getting what they want, which is why they so dread the prospect of a citizen referendum.

They know that people are fed up with ugly chaotic sprawl, and its attendant headaches of gridlock, overcrowded schools, crime and pollution.

The push for the Hometown Democracy Amendment comes from two lawyers, Russ Burnaman and Lesley Blackner, who grew up in Florida and were dismayed by the damage caused by runaway growth.

Contrary to what some opponents say, the measure would not dismantle the present system by which major developments are processed. Local zoning and planning boards would still be involved from the beginning. Basically, the major difference is that voters -- not elected officeholders -- would make the ultimate decision in cases requiring changes in the land-use plan.

Its foes condemn the amendment as a no-growth weapon. Some contend that average citizens aren't technically qualified to evaluate complicated development projects (as if politicians are), and that they'd automatically reject most proposals.

It's a flimsy argument. Vero Beach has for years required a public vote on any new project in which the height or density differs from the comprehensive plan. The city has continued to grow robustly, and so has its business core.

There are other precedents for growth-issue referendums, at least one of which has been endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The city of Eastlake, Ohio, passed an ordinance stating that any change to its comprehensive plan be approved by 55 percent of voters. Eastlake was sued by a high-rise developer, who said his constitutional rights were being violated.

The high court disagreed, and upheld the city's right to call a land-use referendum.

The stakes are high in Florida. The state has no serious manufacturing base, and its agricultural acreage is shrinking rapidly. More than ever, the economy is relying on growth for the sheer dumb sake of growth. As an industry it ranks second only to tourism.

As you'd expect, state legislators are studiously conspiring to keep the Home Democracy Amendment away from the electorate -- after all, they feed at the same trough as other politicians.

Secret influence

There are some legitimate apprehensions about land-use referendums. As in any election, the risk exists for confusion, impulsiveness and, ultimately, unwise choices.

But the next time you're stuck on the interstate in southwest Broward, look around and ask yourself if ordinary citizens could possibly do a worse job of managing growth than the chowderheads who are currently in charge.

In theory, of course, we shouldn't have to go out and vote on every major development. In theory, the people we elect to office should be able to make those decisions competently and free of secret influence.

In theory, the interests and welfare of a neighborhood should carry just as much weight as those of St. Joe, or any other big powerful company.

Maybe things really work that way somewhere in the universe, but not here in Florida.

Not in real life.

______________**_________________

In Broward, concerns on growth

This sense that development has burst out of control, like an incurable virus, like an epidemic, like a plague of strangers, has been nagging at locals since the 1960s, a decade when Broward County was hung with the dubious honor as the fastest-growing county in the nation.

The 1970s brought no relief -- 700 new residents a week moved into the county. Broward's 1977 Land Use Plan, meant to harness unfettered development, noted in the preface that the peasants were grumbling: ``The electorate of Broward County expressed its disenchantment with the rapid pace and the manner of development. Roads, water and sewer facilities, as well as other service-delivery systems, were not keeping pace.

``Uncoordinated and unmanaged growth . . . alarmed the citizens and some concerned elected officials to an unprecedented degree.''

So on Nov. 7, 1977, the cure, a tough land-use plan, was adopted.

Some cure.

Through most of the 1980s, Broward was ranked first or second or third among the fastest-growing counties in the fastest-growing state. That land-use plan might as well have been printed on tissue paper. Elected officials, toadies to developer interests, were just too willing to grant exceptions.

SUPPOSED BENEFITS

Meanwhile, the supposed benefits of growth never quite caught up with the problems.

''The faster we ran, the behinder we got,'' John DeGrove, then director of the FAU-FIU Joint Center for Urban and Environmental Problems, told The Herald in a late 1980s interview. ``We believed growth was giving us a free ride, when just the opposite was true.''

Broward County had grown 1,346 percent from 1950 to 1989. DeGrove assured The Herald that during the '80s, ``our love affair with growth cooled and people really began to complain about the declining quality of life in Broward.''

So what happened, then, in the next decade? How did the political leadership respond to this wave of citizen ''disenchantment''? Broward County grew faster in the 1990s than all but two of the nation's larger counties.

Great news if you were in the business of building houses in Broward. Not so great if you happened to live in one.

Now, with 1,698,425 Broward residents, the stated goal of the 1977 Land Use Plan, ''maintaining a tropical resort character,'' mocks reality. If there's any character left in this one-time tropical resort, it can't be trusted to politicians. A measure of hope lies in the proposal County Commissioner John Rodstrom offered on Tuesday to give voters the exclusive right to decide whether developers can bust the land-use plan's density limits.

VOTER APPROVAL

County voters would first need to approve a change in the county charter. But there's no doubt how such a vote would go anywhere in South Florida. A similar proposal received 67 percent of the vote in Miami Beach two weeks ago, and 91 percent in Surfside on Tuesday.

The charter change would circumvent a legislative effort by Sen. Steve Geller, D-Hallandale, to excise the county from city decisions to alter the land-use plan. Geller, who also doubles as a lobbyist for developers, was not pleased.

But Rodstrom said his measure would finally give voters some control after years of watching, helplessly, as runaway development deviated from the land-use plan and overwhelmed their communities. And he senses growing support for the so-called Florida Hometown Democracy initiative for a constitutional amendment granting voters across the state the same veto power.

''People are just shocked at our inability to deal with the growth issue.'' Rodstrom said. ``Growth is the No. 1 issue now. More people are talking about it than ever before.''

More people are talking about it lately. But their frustration has echoed through Broward for five decades.

________________**__________________

19 Mar 04

Citizens initiative hot issue at real estate conference

Amendment seeks to change the way developers get approval for land-use changes.

By CHRISTOPHER CALNAN
The Times-Union, Jacksonville, FL

There was nothing but blue-skied comments about Jacksonville's real estate market during a half-day conference Thursday. But clouds of doom suddenly appeared with the mention of the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment.

"This amendment is potentially the most damaging thing that could happen to our industry," said Roger O'Steen, chairman of real estate developer The Parc Group. "It's an area of great concern, and it's going to take a lot of effort and money to fight it."

Jerry Mallot, executive director of the Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce, said the effort's name may illegitimately evoke patriotic sentiments from the public.

"It's very concerning," he said.

The comments followed nearly two hours of glowing reports about Northeast Florida's real estate industry during the Eighth Annual First Coast Real Estate Outlook conference at the Adam's Mark hotel.

The amendment is a citizens initiative that seeks to change the way developers get approval from local politicians for land-use changes. It would require voters to approve changes to county comprehensive plans before enactment.

Supporters want the amendment placed on the ballot by this fall's elections, and they need 500,000 signatures to do that.

The amendment's authors, Palm Beach environmental attorney Leslie Blackner, and another Florida attorney, Ross Burnaman, introduced the initiative last year in response to what they perceived as uncontrolled growth in Florida.

Blackner said last month the effort started gathering signatures in July and has collected 40,000 to date. Amendment advocates want residents of communities to have a say in any changes made to size, height, location of new buildings, the density of planned developments and other factors.

But Northeast Florida Builders Association president Greg Matovina said such extensive involvement would make development nearly impossible.

"Ultimately, it would get to the point where it would just freeze the process, stop it in its tracks," he said.

That's an overstatement, said Jacksonville Beach resident Tom Larson, chairman of the Northeast Florida Group of the Sierra Club, the environmental organization supporting the amendment.

He said the measure would discourage piecemeal changes to comprehensive plans.

"We just believe transparency is important to a fair and good outcome," Larson said.

christopher.calnanjacksonville.com

______________**_______________

19 Mar 2004 Urban Planning -Ripple effect Election results in South Florida cities indicate a new skepticism toward development industry, local officials By Oscar Musibay, Dan Weil, and Terry Sheridan When Surfside residents went to the polls this week, they were given the opportunity to take more direct control of development in their northeast Miami-Dade hamlet. And they did - overwhelmingly. About 91 percent of the 1,208 votes cast Tuesday were in favor of a referendum giving Surfside's 4,900 residents the final say on land-use plan changes. Only 98 residents cast ballots against the measure, with 44.7 percent of the city's eligible voters turning out. The referendum had the blessing of the Surfside Town Commission, which earlier this month passed a resolution in support of the Florida Hometown Democracy initiative that proposes giving residents statewide a say in local planning and zoning changes in their cities. The residents of the seaside town south of Bal Harbour are hardly alone. Throughout the tricounty area, from Miami Beach to Jupiter, voters in recent municipal elections claimed a greater role in zoning decision-making or sent a clear signal to their elected officials that they wanted to slow down development. In several cities, incumbents viewed as developer friendly were either tossed from office or faced serious opposition. Miami Beach Mayor David Dermer said the message from voters is one of distrust in local politicians. Voters don't have faith in their city leaders to make decisions related to development or on issues that impact their quality of life. "The voters want a livable city," said Dermer, who was swept into office in 1997 on an anti-development platform after successfully spearheading a grass-roots effort to limit oceanfront development in the city. "They understand that an overdeveloped city affects everyone," he said. "They understand that it affects the quality of their lives on a dailybasis." On March 9, voters in Miami Beach approved a charter amendment that requires their approval by referendum before density on commercial and multifamily projects in the city can be increased. Voters already had power over density changes to waterfront projects. The latest charter change has attorneys for developers fuming. Stanley Price, who represents developers and local governments, said the cost of holding an election for every zoning matter would be prohibitive. The irony is that voters are giving themselves the power to vote on complex issues and projects that require careful consideration, and yet voter turnout has been small in recent local elections, he said. He said the result would be NIMBY-ism - the "Not In My Backyard" mantra of certain anti-growth citizens - at its worst. "It is in effect going to be a de facto moratorium because no developer in their right mind will go forward with the process. It will have a chilling effect on private developers attempting to start new projects," said Santiago Echemendia, a partner at Tew Cardenas in Miami who represents developers. "In effect, it is zoning by plebiscite, which is the opposite direction of the way the courts have been going." Gregg Covin, developer of Ten Museum Park on Biscayne Boulevard and a veteran of Miami Beach development, said the impact of the change is likely to be nominal. "There really isn't too much land left on Miami Beach, so it's only going to affect a few projects in the future." Covin said he understands the intent of the ballot measure that passed in Miami Beach, but he sees potential problems for developers who need some flexibility in density to accommodate building provisions for physical handicaps or other hardships But Surfside Mayor Paul Novack disputes the notion that the public cannot make educated decisions on projects. "First of all, the developers and their attorneys are insulting the people's intelligence," he said. "They are saying the people can't make wise development decisions. These decisions are so fundamental that they can drastically alter the future of a community, and the public has a right to have the last word." The populist trend appears to have momentum.

11 Mar 04

Status of Legislative effort to change the constitutional amendment process:

SENATE PANEL APPROVES LIMITS ON CITIZEN INITIATIVES

Associated Press,

Jackie Hallifax, March 11, 2004
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/8163012.htm

Tallahassee, Fl. - People who want to change the state constitution by petition drive would have to get their signatures sooner to make the ballot and attract more Election Day support to win passage under changes a Senate panel approved Thursday.

And citizen initiatives couldn't address anything except fundamental rights, the basic structure of government or changes to a current provision.

If the full Legislature passes the three proposals approved by the Ethics & Elections Committee, the changes won't take effect unless approved by voters. The committee voted Thursday to put the changes before voters on the Aug. 31 primary ballot rather than waiting until November. It's not clear there's enough support for such a move, which would require 30 votes in the 40-member Senate and 90 votes in the 120-member House. Should the three changes not make the August ballot, they still could be on in November if passed by the full Senate and House, which is working on similar proposals.

The first proposal (SJR 2392) changes the threshold for passage. It would require that all proposed constitutional amendments - including those put on the ballot by the Legislature - win 60 percent of the vote for passage. Currently ballot measures need only a simple majority.

The deadline proposal (SJR 2394) would require groups sponsoring petition drives to collect the necessary validated signatures - about half a million - by February. The current deadline is 91 days before the general election, a date that falls in midsummer. The measure would also put an April 1 deadline for the Florida Supreme Court to review citizen initiatives for scope and clarity.

The filter proposal (SJR 2396) would restrict the subject of constitutional amendments proposed by citizen initiative to fundamental rights, the structure of government or changes to an existing amendment. The state's high court would make the call. Sen. Rod Smith, D-Alachua, who chaired a special committee that recommended the changes, said the filter probably wouldn't eliminate many issues - but said he was confident the pregnant pig proposal voters approved in 2002 would not have made the ballot. The pregnant pig amendment, which was pushed by the Humane Society and other animal rights groups, bans the practice of confining pregnant pigs in crates too small for them to move or lie down. The practice is not common in Florida.

Gov. Jeb Bush and many state lawmakers point to the cost of citizen initiatives like the high-speed train, which voters approved in 2000, and class-size reduction, which voters approved in 2002, as fuel for an argument that some voter mandates make it difficult to run the state in a fiscally responsible manner.

______________**_________________

10 Mar 04

Florida Municipality Endorses the Proposed

HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY AMENDMENT

To the Florida Constitution

Surfside, Fl.: The Town Commission of the Town of Surfside has unanimously passed a Resolution that recommends passage of the proposed Hometown Democracy Amendment (HDA). The vote came after public discussions and hearings on a variety of land use issues conducted over the last several months. Surfside is well known for its public interest oriented development policies; the town has succeeded at achieving upscale renovations and redevelopment while consistently enforcing the limitations of the towns zoning code and denying all requests for variances or exceptions. The HDA would provide the citizens of Florida the opportunity to reserve for themselves the final decision on changes to their communities Comprehensive Land Use Plan and it would afford citizens the right and ability to participate in decisions that could drastically change the scale and integrity of local development laws and policies. The draft Resolution to be considered by the Surfside Town Commission is set forth below. Surfside is the first municipality in the State of Florida to consider supporting the HAD, which would vastly increase democratic participation in major land use planning decisions and which would curtail the vast influence of special interests that too frequently dominate planning and zoning issues in communities throughout Florida.

======================================================

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COMMISSION ENDORSING AND RECOMMENDING PASSAGE OF THE FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION

Whereas: Overdevelopment has become a significant threat to the quality of life of citizens in communities throughout the State of Florida;

Whereas: Overdevelopment has already had a major negative impact upon numerous quality of life issues such as school overcrowding, traffic congestion, public safety, taxes and tolls;

Whereas: Public safety has been affected due to overdevelopment particularly along Floridas coastal areas and the resulting reduced capacities for any immediate or urgent emergency evacuation;

Whereas: Overdevelopment has placed additional economic burdens upon public agencies and ultimately the taxpayers through an increased need for costly public infrastructure construction and expansion projects;

Whereas: Special interests have frequently influenced and obtained changes in comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances such as to facilitate overdevelopment without regard for the consequences to the public interest;

Whereas: Existing procedures and policies for making upward changes in limitations set forth by comprehensive plans has appeared to work more to the benefit of special interests than to the public interest, and Floridas citizens have had an inadequate opportunity to effectively participate in fundamental decisions that would potentially produce major changes in a community and its quality of life;

Whereas: The United States Supreme Court has stated that Under our constitutional assumptions, all power derives from the people, who can delegate it to representative instruments which they create. In establishing legislative bodies, the people can reserve to themselves power to deal directly with matters which might otherwise be assigned to the legislature. (City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 426 U.S. 668 (1976).

Whereas: The Florida Supreme Court has held that The concept of referendum is thought by many to be a keystone of self-government, and its increasing use is indicative of a desire on the part of the electorate to exercise greater control over the laws which directly affect them. (Florida Land Company v. City of Winter Springs, 427 So.2d 170 (Fla. 1983).

Whereas: Just one year ago, the Supreme Court of the United States held in a unanimous decision that the people retain the power to govern through referendum with respect to any matter, legislative of administrative, within the realm of local affairs. (City of Cuyahoga Falls vs. Buckeye Foundation, 123 S.Ct. 1389 (2003).

Whereas: The proposed Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment seeks to allow the people of Florida to reserve to themselves the final decision on changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for future development of their communities;

Whereas: Floridas communities belong to the people who live in them, and the citizens should have the right to vote to decide upon any major change in laws that form the framework for future development in their cities and towns; voters should have the ability to directly participate in regulating the scale of future development and in the potential to prevent overdevelopment of their home communities;.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Town Commission of the Town of Surfside, having dedicated its own policies to preserving the scale and integrity of the community and to protect its quality of life, having consistently recognized the need to have development regulations reflect the public interest rather than any special interest, and having facilitated direct local democracy over any potential future zoning district regulation increase within the Town through the proposition of the upcoming Town Charter Amendment, hereby finds it in the public interest to favorably recommend passage of the proposed statewide Hometown Democracy Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Florida.

Our sincerest thanks to Mayor Paul Novack for his personal support and commitment.

Lesley, Ross and the FHD HQ team.

Concerned Friends of Fernandina

Concerned Friends of Fernandina is a grassroots citizens group formed to inform and involve

residents wanting to preserve the small town identity of Fernandina Beach and its natural beauty.

"With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." -- Abraham Lincoln

Court derails amendment drive

High court rules 4-3 against Hometown Democracy measure

Will court curb eminent domain?

EDITORIAL from Orlando Sentinel

Leave it alone

21 Mar 04

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/fred_grimm/8232304.htm

Fred Grimm

For problems or questions regarding this web contact webmaster@fofgroup.org

"cfof" are residents of Fernandina Beach, Florida.

Last updated: May 14, 2008.