[Editor's Note: This is a reprint of the St. Pete Times editorial officially recommending a "no" vote on Amendment 4. Read the original editorial here.]

“St. Pete Beach provides the closest thing Florida has to a test of Amendment 4-type regulation. It has been a disaster in that city, resulting in lawsuits, soaring legal bills for taxpayers and a standstill on development. That’s the future facing other communities if Amendment 4 passes.”

September 27, 2010 Amendment 4, the so-called “Hometown Democracy” amendment to the Florida Constitution on the Nov. 2 ballot, sounds appealing to voters coping with urban sprawl and traffic jams while irresponsible state legislators gut growth management laws. They may believe the amendment would empower them to put a lid on undesirable development in their communities. But Amendment 4 would make things worse by creating haphazard development patterns, shifting more influence to monied special interests, spawning expensive lawsuits and undercutting recovery from the recession. The state needs to better manage growth, but this amendment is not the answer.

Amendment 4 results from a petition drive by Florida Hometown Democracy Inc., co-founded by Palm Beach land use attorney Lesley Blackner and Tallahassee environmental attorney Ross Burnaman. They argue government has done such a bad job of controlling growth that voters should be put in charge. It’s hard to disagree with their conclusion even if their solution is wrong.

Amendment 4 would give voters veto power over changes to a city or county “comprehensive land use plan,” though there is disagreement about whether that refers to their comprehensive plans or their future land use plans. But these plans are highly technical documents that can be hundreds of pages long. They are meant to be living documents that are amended as a community grows and its vision of its future shifts. But under Amendment 4, even a single word change or slight modification to a map would have to go to voters for approval.

Amendment 4 would not let residents halt all development in their communities, even if they wished to, because they would vote only on projects requiring a comprehensive plan change. Projects designed within the parameters of the existing plan – typically the vast majority – would need only government approval.

However, Amendment 4 likely would discourage developers from pursuing projects that required a plan amendment, even projects a community might desire. It would lengthen the approval process and increase developers’ costs and risk. Developers who survived the already lengthy government approval process could wait up to two more years for the next regularly scheduled election, and then voters might say no. It is easy to see why developers might decide to build their projects in another state, which could imperil Florida’s recovery from the recession.

But if the developer chose to take on the challenge, what should be an orderly, fact-based planning process would be distorted into a political campaign. Residents who opposed a project – and who currently must persuade only their local officials to take their side – would have to convince thousands of voters, too. And they would be up against deep-pocketed developers more easily able to afford sophisticated campaigns to sway voters.

How would voters reach their decisions about plan changes? Would they study their comprehensive plan to understand the ballot question? Would they utilize planning principles such as compatibility that foster orderly growth? That’s asking a lot, and uninformed decisions could lead to bizarre development patterns, conflicting land uses and court challenges.

St. Pete Beach provides the closest thing Florida has to a test of Amendment 4-type regulation. It has been a disaster in that city, resulting in lawsuits, soaring legal bills for taxpayers and a standstill on development. That’s the future facing other communities if Amendment 4 passes.

This is not a path to better growth management in Florida. The St. Petersburg Times recommends a “no” vote on Amendment 4.

The Lakeland Area Chamber of Commerce has also taken a position against this anti-business proposal.

We encourage you to visit the Website for additional information and resources: www.Florida2010.org

The Chamber Board of Directors and members of the Government Affairs Committee have been writing letters to Governor Crist urging him to keep the funding for the University of South Florida Polytechnic and the new USF Pharmacy School IN the budget.

The University of South Florida Polytechnic has been a long standing public policy priority for the Lakeland Area Chamber of Commerce. USFP is unquestionably one of the most important economic development projects to impact not only Lakeland, but Polk County and the greater I-4 corridor in decades, and will serve as a catalyst to attract high skill/high wage industry and jobs to our region. Information technology, manufacturing, logistics, distribution, health care and engineering– these are just a few industries that will be attracted to our area as a result of USF Polytechnic.

Now we need your help.

We need to send Governor Crist a loud message of support for USFP. Below is a letter to the Governor stating our support. I realize we are all very busy, so I have made it easy! All you have to do is fill in your name, copy it into an email and click the send button. Too complicated? Pick up the phone and call his office (850)-488-4441. Tell his staff your name, where you are from, your occupation (we want Governor Crist to know that you represent the business community) and NO VETO for USFP funding.

Find the MS Word document by clicking here.

MS Word document for Polk State College Funding.

Need help? Call Katie Daughtrey at the Chamber (863) 688-8551, Ext. 241.

This November, voters will be faced with a number of tough decisions at the ballot box.  Fortunately, one of the most important decisions should also be the easiest.  Amendment 4, a “Vote on Everything” proposal, would kill jobs, raise taxes, and lead to endless litigation at taxpayer expense.

Amendment 4 has been referred to as a ‘stimulus package for special interest lawyers’.  And for good reason; this proposal would add costly new layers of bureaucratic red-tape to an already complicated planning process.  It would be virtually impossible to condense thousands of pages of technical planning data into the 75 word ballot summaries that are required by law.  Inevitably, disagreements – and lawsuits – would ensue.  Amendment 4 encourages the special interests that lose at the ballot box to take their case to court, at taxpayer expense.

That is exactly what happened to the small town of St. Pete Beach, which implemented a local version of Amendment 4 in 2006. The measure has decimated their economy and created chaos at the polls. To date, the citizens of St. Pete Beach have seen nearly a dozen lawsuits that have cost local taxpayers more than three-quarters of a million dollars in legal fees. When St. Pete Beach voters approved four pro-economy changes to their comprehensive plan in 2008, Amendment 4 lawyers sued to overturn the results of the election. Nearly two years later, the people of St. Pete Beach are still defending their vote in court. Ward Friszolowski, the former Mayor of St. Pete Beach wrote “Our experiment in Amendment 4 has turned St. Pete Beach into a battleground for special interests.”  The same “copy and paste” lawsuits that plague St. Pete Beach would soon spread to every Florida town.

Moreover, under Amendment 4, residents most impacted by local planning decisions will lose influence in a process that inherently favors deep-pocketed special interests. This measure would turn the growth management debate into a political spectacle.   Neighborhoods would lose representation in the public planning process, as communities across town make decisions about schools, hospitals, jails, and landfills in your backyard.

Worse still, Amendment 4 will introduce new delays into the planning process. This measure is so extreme that it does not even contain exceptions for vital community projects like hospitals, schools, police stations or fire trucks.  Consequently, even important and uncontroversial community projects will likely experience paralyzing delays.

As Florida attempts to recover from this devastating recession, the last thing we need is Amendment 4, a proposal that would empower special interest lawyers to raid taxpayer’s pockets in order to finance special interest lawsuits.  This November, VOTE NO on Amendment 4!

A team of high school students representing Polk County finished in second place in the state high school academic tournament held April 15 to 17 at the Contemporary Convention Center at Walt Disney World in Lake Buena Vista. The title of the tournament is the Commissioner’s Academic Challenge. The event is associated with the commissioner’s office of the Florida Department of Education

Polk was runner-up with 198 points in the finals to state champion Escambia County’s 233 points.  Polk competed in a division of school districts with enrollments more than 40,000 students.  Eighteen school districts competed in the division.  Brevard, Sarasota, Pinellas and Duval finished in third through six places respectively in the finals. Polk was also state runner-up in 2008 and 2004.  Polk won the state championship in 2007. Polk won third places in 2009 and 2005. 2010 marks the sixth consecutive year that Polk finished among the top three.

Polk’s team was composed of five public school students and one private school student. Two other public school students were selected to attend as competition observers.  The eight students were chosen to attend the state event based upon their performances in the countywide academic tournament held in February.  They are listed according to school with their year in school and residence.

All Saints’ Academy (Winter Haven): Kevin Baker, junior, Winter Haven.

Bartow International Baccalaureate: James Karson, senior, Lakeland;  Bianca Mulaney, sophomore, Lakeland; Jill Shah, senior, Lakeland (observer); Asheen Zariat, senior, Lakeland.

Haines City International Baccalaureate: Sanjay Chandrasekar, senior, Winter Haven (observer). Henrique Valim, senior, Winter Haven.

Lakeland High: Kenny Parker, junior, Lakeland.

Polk tested their knowledge against other counties in mathematics, science, language arts, social studies, world languages, technology, fine arts and humanities. The coaches for Commissioner’s Academic Challenge were Caroline King and Cece Sinclair from All Saints.’

In addition to the  runner-up trophy,  the Polk team received medallions from the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) and rings from Herff Jones, Inc.

Sponsors for the Challenge were the Florida Department of Education, the host school districts of the Polk Public Schools and Pinellas Public Schools, Herff Jones, Inc., Aramark Education, The Florida Lottery, the  public school districts of Brevard, DeSoto, Leon and Suwannee counties and the Florida High School Athletic Association.

Defeating Amendment 4 is the Lakeland Chamber’s number one priority this year. This amendment will have a devastating effect on our local and state economies, just watch what it did to St. Pete Beach…

Want to learn more about Amendment 4? Visit www.florida2010.org

Paid Political Advertisement Sponsored by Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Inc. – 610 South Blvd., Tampa, FL 33606. Paid for In-Kind by the Lakeland Area Chamber of Commerce – PO Box 3607, Lakeland, FL 33802-3607.