Hometown Democracy, the citizen-driven initiative to pass Amendment 4, seems to have a simple enough goal — give voters a bigger say in Florida's growth. Inspired by uncontrolled sprawl across the state, the amendment would require that citizens vote upon any proposed changes to a local comprehensive land use plan.
It's no surprise that environmental groups support the amendment and that developers don't. But the opposition also includes the Florida AFL-CIO and the Florida League of Cities, which issued a public statement that Amendment 4 "will do more harm than good."
Why would municipal governments fight the amendment? Some critics say the reason is obvious: Cities are fearful of giving too much power to the people. But city officials say that the amendment's potential benefits are offset by the obstacles it could generate. Among those concerned is St. Petersburg City Councilman Karl Nurse, who says he's worried that roadblocks could be placed in the way of transportation initiatives.
"If we are going to build light rail, then wherever you put a rail stop, you are going to want to change the area around it. Well, under Amendment 4 you are likely to have to hold a referendum for every rail stop," Nurse told Creative Loafing.
At a public hearing on July 22, Nurse offered a controversial counter-measure — one that some view as an attempt to make an end run around the voters. He presented a multi-colored map of St. Petersburg that would reduce the number of categories in the city's land-use plan from 23 to five: neighborhoods, activity centers, corridors, preservation and recreation/open space. While Amendment 4, if passed in November, would give citizens a direct say in any changes to the city's plan, Council's map would enable such referenda only for the "bigger fights" — when a development project would impact one of the five big categories.
"It is a real skill to take a complicated issue and make it something, at a 5-second glance, you understand the issue," said Nurse during the July hearing. "Frankly, that is what that map does."
Seven other Council agreed with him, voting to approve the new map. Only Councilman Steve Kornell voted against it.
"Amendment 4 will not work in many ways, but in January I think that would be the appropriate time to consider this, and at that time I may be a yes," said Kornell during the meeting. "But I don't particularly want to do it before the people have a voice."
And that's the crux of many people's objections to the move. The proposal isn't being put to a public referendum, but rather an approval process similar to that given a statute or ordinance enacted by the city. "I really feel like if this change is so important and so wonderful, then why can't the people decide?" said Cathy Harrelson, Shore Acres resident and Sierra Club activist, at July's meeting.
The re-shaping of the map, and the way Council is going about getting it approved, could be seen as pre-emptive strikes to avoid the will of the people.
"In fact, if 60 percent of the citizens vote for [Amendment 4], it strikes me as arrogant that you would try and put something in that would override it," said Hal Freedman, a St. Petersburg resident at last month's meeting.
"This showed that the public officials feel constrained by the public, not working for the public," Cathy Harrelson told CL. "Choosing to put changes through as quickly and surreptitiously as they did, reinforces the concept of why we need Amendment 4."
The St. Petersburg Times' Howard Troxler wrote a column describing the map as a "decoy."
"What St. Petersburg is basically saying is the city will still have control and the voters don't get to operate at that lower level," Troxler told CL.
"This is the beauty of this, in trying to avoid the effect of the citizen amendment, they are trying to do it essentially by statute by a local ordinance, or create a name," he continues. "That is the name that is covered by the constitutional amendment. The interesting question is whether any government could evade the impact of a citizen amendment simply by renaming, creating a fiction, a new piece of paper, and say, 'Oh no, that's what you meant.'"
Don't be surprised if their decision, if enacted, is challenged in court by Amendment 4 advocates, said Troxler.
"This gives local governments license to neutralize or evade any direct order they get from the citizens simply by renaming the thing that the citizens have named in their petition."
St. Petersburg's five-colored response to the impending Amendment 4 could become an example to follow for local government in the future. Nurse says that other cities are developing "transit-oriented overlays" to protect them from referenda regarding minor traffic alterations.
The second public hearing before the council votes to formally adopt the proposal is on Thursday, September 2 at City Hall in downtown St. Petersburg.
"I think what is important is that one of the local officials' jobs is to make the system work," Nurse said. "People have the right to email or to speak. If enough people don't like it, we won't do it."
This article appears in Aug 26 – Sep 1, 2010.