Hometown Democracy’s Latest Ad: Voters Should Have A Say In Development


Amendment 4 is giving developers conniptions. Isn’t that reason enough to vote for it?

The amendment would require the voters approval for land use change.  Politicians would have to listen to neighborhoods rather than just the lobbyists who raise them campaign cash.  

Hometown Democracy’s latest ad is here.  You decide.

5 Responses to “Hometown Democracy’s Latest Ad: Voters Should Have A Say In Development”

  1. Reprobait1 says:

    I’m glad Amendment 4 is causing conniptions. As a long-term Planning & Zoning board member, I’m tired of the developers’ attornies coming before us to apply for major land use changes to the existing comprehensive plan. Yes, the market has been soft. But these guys are applying for far more on these parcels than was originally granted. And the political machinations of the local pols, many first term-ers, is in many cases ridiculous. It seems the municipal pols can’t wait to jump on the gravy train fast enough and ride their way to the big lights downtown. They need to take care of their consituents and quit cow-towing to all these lobbyists and lawyers. Just say NO!

  2. Resident says:

    Question Buddy, how many land use changes do you think a city votes on during the year that the voters will have to decide? How often will these elections occur and who will be paying for them? How long will development have to wait until something happens, and how many jobs will be lost just by waiting?

    The ballot is already too long, and this will bog it down. It will be like taking an exam everything time you go to vote, and most won’t know what they are voting on.

    Hometown Democracy works in small towns where they have their own community meetings to vote. It doesn’t work in cities.

    Check out elsewhere in the country they did this and see how everything came to a halt. No economic development. It’s been a disaster.

    Good concept, bad idea.

  3. Floridan says:

    Amendment 4 is giving developers conniptions. Isn’t that reason enough to vote for it?

    While that sort of reasoning may make sense to the average 8th grader, it hardly constitutes a way to insure good planning.

    There are many, many reasons to oppose Amendment 4 but the underlying flaw is that it will ask residents to vote on development issues because they can’t trust the elected officials that they voted into office.

    I don’t buy that our development problems are a result of commissioners listening to “lobbyists who raise them campaign cash” instead of residents, but even if that were true, what makes anyone think that the developers won’t be able to mount effective marketing and ad campaigns to convince voters their’s is a great project, and the shifty lobbyists won’t be buying off neighborhood leaders?

  4. Joyce Tarnow says:

    FOLLOW THE MONEY! 824 Florida officials convicted from 1998-2007 and more indicted. Opposition to Amendment 4 raised $4.7 million from April 1 to July 16th. Florida is #1 in the nation in foreclosures. The big boys crashed Florida’s economy yet they have the gall to give their campaign the name of Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy. Research at the Department of Community Affairs shows an average of 4 land use votes in cities and counties in each year. Build within the Comp Plan and there is no need for a citizens up or down vote.

  5. ILoveSewing says:

    Joyce Tarnow

    Why do you keep spreading lies? A quick Google search or review of DCA’s records show the true story – in the Sunset Review DCA reported nearly 6500 changes in one fiscal year alone! Reviews of the planning council agendas contradict what you are saying too. You all can’t have it both ways – your founder claims that there are too many comp plan amendments but then when people start asking how many times would I vote, you all come back with another version of the story. Typical.