... And My Reply

Here's my answer to the excellently stated criticisms by Nelson that I published in the previous item:

Dear nelson:

Thank you for the vigorous post. You reject criticism of misleading campaign material by the opponents of Hometown Democracy, on the grounds that the rhetoric in favor has been misleading as well. Now, I kind of think that their warnings that you cite are indeed true, but I suppose we will disagree on that.

Next, you cite the protections of Florida's state-level review as evidence of... of what? That things are working just fine? Procedure exists in Florida ultimately to enable growth. The state-level review that you mention is mostly a matter of henpecking -- and as you must know, it has just been "streamlined" by the Legislature even more. In the end of it, the forces of growth are able to say, "Everything is fine because we followed all the procedures."

You write:

You have an even greater burden to tell the truth, since your career is founded on the conceit that you right wrongs and afflict the well off. Unless you don't really care and just want the blind adulation of your raving minions. And you clearly do.... You don't want [a debate] either, Howard. You don't want a solution, you want a drum to pound.''

Actually, I want a debate. Here is the topic: Should voters, instead of local elected officials, be in charge of approving changes to local comprehensive plans in Florida? Of course, this is simply a re-statement of the Hometown Democracy proposal itself, but it has been kind of lost.

Off the top of my head I can think of many themes to explore on the "anti" side.
-- Voting on every little thing, especially in big communities, is cumbersome and unrealistic.
-- We live in a republic, not a democracy; we elect representatives. If we don't like their actions we should choose different representatives, not complain about the fact we have a republic and try to weaken its ability to govern.
-- Decisions about land use are not just political footballs to be decided on political whims. They involve many technical considerations and are best evaluated by professional staffs, who make recommendations to a board of responsible elected decision-makers.
-- All property owners are entitled to equal protection under the law in America. Subjecting each property owner to the whims of an election -- so that one might win approval, but another similar situated might be rejected by the voters -- is the very definition of unequal protection.

How'm I doin'? Feel free to chip in. But, now, isn't this better than screaming that meteors are going to fall out of the sky, orcs are going to emerge from the Earth, and anybody who likes Hometown Democracy is a fool, a sucker or a demagogue?

Interestingly, most of the anti-HD rhetoric has been based on the assumption -- this is a key point -- THAT VOTERS WILL REJECT ALL GROWTH in a knee-jerk fashion. I think that is wrong. If HD passed, I think we would see a whole new style of growth-related decision-making, in which landowners would have to engage their community up-front, rather than catering to the usual insider clique of land-use lawyers, staff and elected officials.

Lastly, you ask, why not just elect different politicians? 'Cause the folks with the money give more of it to the candidates they like, who get elected and approve their rezonings...

Best wishes,

Howard

Comments

[Larry]

Howard, methinks that Nelson is a developer.

[20/20]

“If HD passed, I think we would see a whole new style of growth-related decision-making, in which landowners would have to engage their community up-front, rather than catering to the usual insider clique of land-use lawyers, staff and elected officials.”

“Lastly, you ask, why not just elect different politicians? 'Cause the folks with the money give more of it to the candidates they like, who get elected and approve their rezonings...”

Howard,

Absolutely dead-on. Kudos’ to you, and I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, I don’t remember being in such complete agreement with you on a specific topic.

Well done, sir… great discourse on the topic.

[Boo Boo]

I guess I am what is considered a damn yankee. I moved here 7 years ago, making a promise to myself never to shovel snow again. I can't believe the changes that have occured just in the little time I have been here. I drive down US 19 and it's all changed from Drew St to Sunset Pt. The big news about moblie home parks being gulped up by developers and retirees being sent packing. Gulf to Bay and Belcher a huge constuction project on the SE corner. On the SW corner an ex mobile home park being torn down. Maybe I am too simplistic but had the developer that wanted to build those 1/2 million dollar condos where the moblie home park sat. Was denied the permit and land variance those old folks may still be enjoying their meager litte existance. The commissioners buy into that "it will increase the tax base" rhetoric and wham your homeless. Then they tell you how they are going to pour money into affordable housing and end homelessness? I don't want to halt growth but the growth I have seen has caused headaches and heartaches. Not to mention a strain on resources. But what do I know I am just a "damn yankee".

3:19 Damn Yankee - who do you think the developers are building all those condos for? They are for all the other damn yankees who came here and demanded the junkie stuff that lines that eyesore you hate - Highway 19.

You're just like those people in Publix who hold up a tomato and say, "Back home in Michigan they grow real tomatos." Well, then if they're so good why don't you go back home and eat them.

I am not in favor of redeveloping mobile home parks - it does create homelessness, but nothing urks a 5th generation Floridian more than some newbie's self rightous comments about my state that the newbie helped destroy.

[Boo Boo]

Hit a nerve huh! Michigan Ugh! Sorry I will high tail it out here as soon as I can.....NOT

Nelson OWNS Troxler. A complete dismantling.

[Nelson]

Trox,

You spend too much time with pols because you're adopting their tactics. In your close, you refute something I didn't say. Very cagey, but dishonest. I didn't suggest electing different politicians. I said the argument of the wisdom of the electorate is clearly undermined by the fact that they voted for the bad guys in the first place. Why should we assume they would be any smarter about a highly technical issue like the carrying capacity of a road or waterline or piece of property? You say money corrupted the vote. Aside from the "stop me before I vote badly again" argument that invokes, what's to say money won't corrupt a vote on land use? The point is, land planning should not be political, but HD would make it so, to the detriment of all, including, if not especially, those who support the amendment.

Did the Leg weaken GMA? Sure. Does that argue for replacing it with something worse?

Your points con the amendment are a good start, but why did you put that start deep into the conversation instead of at the beginning? You only try to be fair *after* someone calls you on the carpet. Again, very political.

Finally, you reiterate that anti-HD make outlandish claims. They do. So do pro-HD, a point that is vastly evident through many publications. You deftly gloss over that in your "refutation" of that very argument.

If you want to run for office and be a politician, do so. If you want to speak truth to power and inform the people, you'll have to look in your heart and think about what honesty means. A journalism professor once told me, "Be careful what you write because people might believe it." Words for the Trox.

Sorry Nelson.

As one of the electorate who actually goes to the polls, I have to point out the promises politicians make during their campaigns and how they actually come to vote on the same issues once they are elected are often diametrically opposed.
If we could trust our commissioners or councilmen to honor the positions that got them elected, then there wouldn't be a need for the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment.
People who attend commision meetings ARE the electorate. Often they are completely ignored when it comes to the issues they raise about their quality of life, over-crowded schools and congested roadways when it comes down to a land use change.
Take the Hickory Hill land use change in Hernando County which was made right AFTER their EAR report came out identifying the land as agricultural.
Then there's Pine Ridge in northeast Pasco that almost happended right after Pasco adopted a comprehensive plan that included the property in a rural protection area.
If it weren't for an angry electorate and alert media, the whole comprehensive plan would have gone straight down the tubes.
Not only do these elected officials ignore the public, they often ignore their own staff recommendations.
We can votes them in and vote them out, but a lot of damage can be done in four years, and the pattern just keeps repeating itself.
And I haven't heard of one city council or county commission that has volunteered to hold themselves to a super majority vote on land use decisions; with the exception of Hernando - but that was done AFTER the Hickory Hill amendment was approved.
If Tom Pelham is serious about his concerns over the frequency and ease of changes to our comprehensive plans, then he should be pushing our state legislature to amend the statutes that govern comprehensive planning instead of leaving it local legislators.
If can't get them to listen when we ask them to say no.. how are we going to get them to propose and pass a supermajority vote?

[Jill]

PS
I don't think our electorate is doing so well in the water or road departments either.
Maybe the environmentalists and fanatics are on to something.

[Nelson]

True dat, re politicians singing a different tune after they are elected. Look at St. Pete Beach, where pro-HD commissioners elected championing voters' right to decide turn around and want to change a land-use law that voters approved with those same new commissioners. I guess voters only get to decide when some people like the opinions. And that's the point: voters make mistakes about land use, about politicians, about lots of things. Which is why HD is so dangerous. Romantic, yes, but unwise. Troxler likes the underdog story, but he misses the facts and the consequences.

[timondfgsatsf]

hello
what do You think about the whole thing in birma ?
have a nice day








http://www.bigdickmania.com/partnership.pl?3510217120 and http://www.bigdongsex.com/partnership.pl?3510217120