RECOMMENDATIONS: FLORIDA’S AMENDMENTS 4, 5, 6
Posted by FactReal on October 28, 2010
BALLOT TITLE: Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans.
FLORIDA TAXWATCH RECOMMENDS VOTING NO ON AMENDMENT 4
ANALYSIS: Amendment 4 would undoubtedly require additional elections. The state’s Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC), which is required by law to develop an economic impact statement on amendments brought to the ballot by citizen initiative, says that how many elections would result is unknown but elections are expensive. [...]
Amendment 4’s envisioned restructuring of property rights from private to public and the associated change in decision-making from the marketplace to the ballot box will likely have devastating, lasting effects on Florida’s economy, the taxpayers, and the treasuries of cities and counties throughout or state. Amendment 4, should it be enacted, will introduce a large and consistent bias against voter approval of new projects as has been demonstrated in similar situations. As a result, commercial and residential investments as well as business formations and expansions will diminish. Higher costs will emerge for approved commercial and residential investments as well as forming new businesses and expanding existing ones. Special interest groups might arise and be funded in attempts to convince a large number of people to vote for or against a given project. Funding special interest groups would further add to the cost of development. Moreover, permanent increases in the direct and indirect costs of elections will occur. Overall, the successful passage of Amendment 4 would be expensive for Florida taxpayers and could be devastating for Florida’s economy.
THE JAMES MADISON INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS VOTING NO ON AMENDMENT 4
ANALYSIS: Opponents say that Amendment 4 will cost jobs and hurt Florida’s economy by stifling growth, thereby costing taxpayers millions of dollars…Opponents also note that because of the large numbers of comprehensive plan amendments proposed in many jurisdictions during each election cycle, the presence on the ballot of scores of highly technical questions may exacerbate Election Day congestion at polling places. However, by far the most persuasive argument against Amendment 4 may be the experience of St. Petersburg Beach, where a local version this measure has been blamed for causing higher taxes, a loss of jobs, and endless litigation.
The evidence against Amendment 4 is overwhelming. Currently, more than 334 organizations, associations, and local governments, plus every daily newspaper in the state, have taken a position against this amendment…and for good reason. Because of the detrimental impacts this amendment would have on Florida’s economy and on citizens’ property rights…
|AMENDMENTS 5 AND 6
BALLOT TITLE: Standards for Legislature to follow in legislative and in congressional redistricting.
THE JAMES MADISON INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS VOTING NO ON AMENDMENTS 5 AND 6
ANALYSIS: Enactment of the confusing and contradictory standards mandated in Amendment 5 [and 6] would increase the likelihood that any redistricting plan devised by the Florida Legislature would be subject to protracted litigation and would ultimately be replaced by a plan devised by appointed judges rather than by the people’s elected representatives.
FLORIDA’S FINANCIAL IMPACT ESTIMATING CONFERENCE (FIEC) CAN’T DETERMINE THE COSTS
The Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC) expects that the proposed amendment may result in increased costs: “The State may incur additional legal costs to litigate the redistricting plans developed under the proposed constitutional standards…For example, the requirement that every district be drawn so as not to favor or disfavor any incumbent or political party may spawn challenges…These legal costs are indeterminate.”
RADICAL LEFTISTS ARE BEHIND THE PROPONENTS OF AMENDMENTS 4, 5, 6…check the public records:
- Radical leftist George Soros, unions, and trial lawyers financing proponents of Amendments 5 and 6
- Big Democrat donor financing proponents of Amendment 4