Amendment 4: Approve or Oppose?

[Metro Jacksonville]

Amendment 4: Approve or Oppose?



A special look into the details of Florida's Amendment 4 and guest editorials for and against this highly controversial amendment in our upcoming elections.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-oct-amendment-4-approve-or-oppose

[Springfield Chicken]

Vote NO!  The system doesn't work as well as it should but this is not the answer.  There are other methods for reining in bad growth.  This amendment puts huge restrictions on ANY growth.  We as voters don't have a great track record of even turning up to vote, much less reading up on issues and candidates the way we should.  Is it really a good idea to take complex plans and condense them to 75 words and have someone reading them for the first time make a spur of the moment decision that could affect schools and roads and hospitals for all of us?

[BridgeTroll]

Based solely on discussions on this site... I will be voting no.

[uptowngirl]

also voting no, and great article breaking down this nonsense.

[buckethead]

I like to buck the trend... I gotta go yes.

Now those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrades?

[archiphreak]

we've already got one failed (miserably failed) attempt at this legislation.  Much like our congress, Florida seems to think they can do it better than the other guy simply by force of will.  Idiots.  VOTE NO!!!!

[tufsu1]

Some interesting points from the St. Pete Times editorial board

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1130872.ece

[simms3]

Definitely vote no...a no brainer.  Anything otherwise is a vote for insanity.

Also, just look at who is "for" the amendment (big surprise there, and why don't you add every major litigation and law firm in S FL).  The groups opposed are all good groups ranging from architects to surpisingly the AFL-CIO (I guess they know it will be a job killer) to Realtors to the Chambers of Commerce to the American Planning Association.

[jaxlore]

You know it astounds me that no one realizes that developers are still throwing up condos and homes left and right and yet people down the street cant give there homes away. This may not be a perfect solution but I don't see the the home builders association coming up with answer anytime soon, oh wait I meant our legislature, oh wait that's right some of them are on in the same. nice.

[cline]

You know it astounds me that no one realizes that developers are still throwing up condos and homes left and right and yet people down the street cant give there homes away. This may not be a perfect solution but I don't see the the home builders association coming up with answer anytime soon, oh wait I meant our legislature, oh wait that's right some of them are on in the same. nice.

This amendment won't stop all that.  There are thousands upon thousands of already entitled dwelling units just waiting to be built. 

[tufsu1]

You know it astounds me that no one realizes that developers are still throwing up condos and homes left and right

really...where?

I agree with what cline has said above, but I haven't exactly seen tons of home construction the past few years.

[trigger]

Read the below articles, please. If you still want to vote against Amendment 4, then go for it. As for me, I'll be voting YES ON AMENDMENT 4. Fear you might be doing the wrong thing is no excuse for lacking the courage to do anything.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/09/floridas-amendment-4-would-give-voters-say-on-overbuilding/63727/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/politics/28florida.html?_r=1

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/07/news/companies/lennar.taxes.fortune/index.htm

[JeffreyS]

I think Amendment 4's heart is in the right place. I have been very against it because of similar measures past failures.
 I do want to somehow convince our elected officials that the rivertowns of the world are a bad long term plan.  I would like to preserve most of Florida's still pristine lands.  I don't know, our politicians seem to sell out to the developers every time.  Developers do not like infill easier to put some dirt in the wetlands.  In the end I will most likely vote no because most of the people I encounter outside of this forum have not given two minutes time in their lives to consider what is good and bad development.

[fonz]

I used to work with Mark and have the highest regards for his abilities as a planner and entitlements professional.  That being said, his analogies to bourbon and water and his diatribe against the current collective (process, lobbyists, political ideology of the day, etc) do not offer a substansive or compelling argument to vote in favor of amendment 4.  I was a casualty of the recent development bubble but I will still be voting no.

[sunshine]

The land speculators and developers are just trying to confuse you into voting NO

Because residential and most commercial growth doesnt pay for itself, it costs taxpayers for the infrastructure for municipal services like roads, schools, safety services, trash pickup, libraries, etc.  The costs of these services come from us, taxpayers in existing areas. 

What it means for metro Jax residents is cutbacks in service, overcrowded schools and roads for years and years as reinvestment in these areas is diverted to support new neighborhoods.

Growth will be unaffected as developers focus on land already designated under our land use plan for the development they need.  Land use changes are NOT NEEDED for growth and development.  So the number of land use changes to vote on would decrease and be at a manageable level because propositions that sound so good in discussions between developers and elected officials behind closed doors may not fly with taxpayer-voters.