The readers on Hometown Democracy

Most readers seemed to take my Sunday column (The case against Hometown Democracy, Sept. 30)in the spirit in which it was intended. No, I haven't switched sides or sold out to developers. (I just wanted to point out that there are interesting arguments on both sides of this issue and that we don't need to stoop to stupid, misleading political ads to make the case. Voters are smart enough to consider the pros and cons of a good argument and decide on balance what they think is the best course.

Now we know what the developers will say-hope you will write a column on "the case against the developers" so we can look at both sides!! expect you read your associate's column[florida, you get uglier by the day-9/23/07-bill maxwell]-thought it was well done as well!! -- E. ADAMS

Your column today gave lots of reasons why voters should vote against FHD...and if they are thinking people, they probably will, based on your reasons. Hopefully, you will also devote the same amount of space to why they should vote for it. (If you have already done so, I apologise for missing it).
-- Bob Lang, Dunedin

Thanks for both e-mails. I have written a few columns about Hometown Democracy, and also about similar local efforts such as the one in St. Pete Beach. Some examples:

Hometown Democracy means war is brewing

Citizens 4, St. Pete Beach 0: So, can the people vote now?

Hey, buddy, watch who you call an 'elector'

... and also have written about Hometown Democracy several times on the blog, including a recent lively debate with an HD opponent. Check out the archive category to the left titled, "Power to the People (Right On)."

I'm a paid collector of signatures in my spare time. Very few people refuse to sign. I get paid .75 cents per signature and the guy next to me with the developers initiative get paid  $1.25 per signature. Developer are in an absolute panic over this amendment and the will and have done anything legal or illegal, true or false they can do to stop this initiative. Everyone signing this initiative will get a letter from Developer asking them to revoke their signature, if that law is not overturned by the court and I have a gut feeling it will, and if they vote for it the sky will fall! With the war chest these guys have this is only the start of their paid opposition. It will be radio, TV, direct mail and more before this is over. More money will be spent on opposing this initiative than any other in the history of Florida.
-- Arthur Hayhoe

It makes me very sad to see Florida being destroyed by out-of-control, unplanned development. Government at all levels, controlled by developers and big business, is an accomplice, not a hindrance. Anything that can slow the tide of concrete, whatever its drawbacks, has my reluctant approval.
-- Charlie Morris, Treasure Island

Comments

[Paid gatherer]

Hey Arthur, get with it - I'm from California and I'm collecting signatures on both and making a killing. I just stamp another person's name at the bottom and the two of us collect together.

We are making a killing - just wait until the redistricting petitions come out this week. WOO HOO! I love Florida!

[Karen]

I'll never sign another petition again

[Nelson]

No, Howie, we don't need to stoop to stupid ads and ridiculous hyperbole, so why do the pro-HD folks do that? You brought up St. Pete Beach, which is the poster child for voting against HD: the
"people-power" types did nothing but lie to the voters from day one and use far worse scare tactics, including threatening old ladies (I kid you not), and now that they've been elected, they're actually reneging on their own argument for voters making the decisions. How does that actual negative example support a theoretical good of HD?

You also forgot the single strongest argument against HD: if voters are so smart, why did they elect the bad politicians in the first place? And what's to stop them from making similarly bad decisions when voting on comp plans, which are far more difficult to understand? I pointed this out before and you ignored it, but it is the very crux of the issue.

You have a sad penchant for ignoring the arguments you can't combat. Cowardly.

Me, personally, I think voters should vote on every single action a government could take, because, in theory, that would place responsibility right where it belongs. In practice, however, I know that voters can't be trusted to vote on every single action. Are politicians better? That's a tough one, but again, if voters are wise, why do they choose politicians that are bad?

HD wants to replace the corrupt few with the idiotic masses. There's a Hobson's choice.

[Kay]

I'll answer it Nelson. Issues are black&white and people are grey. You can vote yes or no on an issue and that's that. You can vote in a person who hass free will which allows them to change. Also, they may be an eloquent speaker but not have the substance to back up all the sound bites. Will electors ever learn to not vote for the one with the most promises?

[Don Mott]

Are there any 'good' politicians, nelson? We all know the politician with the most money and best lies gets elected. But when it comes to land use I think the people are much smarter than you think. It is an undeniable fact that our governments from city to state have been selling us out to the developers. Not only rubber stamping plans to fill wetlands and destroy pristine land but also allowing huge concessions for infrastructure needed to sustain the new growth. And who pays for that? The existing tax payers. The average voter may not know that Joe candidate will not deliver on his campaign promises but I can assure you they will know whether or not to allow Wal-Mart to fill in 20 acres of wetlands to build "another" supercenter, or allow a 20 story condo to be built on a beautiful beach. And the best part is they can't be bought or bribed.

[Nelson]

Don, you sum up the conundrum eloquently, but you miss your own point.

You write:

"We all know the politician with the most money and best lies gets elected."

And then you write:

"The average voter ... can't be bought or bribed."

I hope you see how incongruous these two statements are.

Besides under HD, every time a vote on a comp plan comes along, it will be a political campaign both for and against it. By your logic, the candidate with the most money and best lies will win, and that could very easily be the developer, not the pure, innocent people. And spending that money to persuade the people is essentially a bribe, in the case of developments. Witness the concessions developers make to neighbors of a project to buy their consent: landscaping and traffic calming and signs and decorations. In one Tampa case, a court had to step in and stop the outfront bribery of the neighborhood (or maybe it was extortion by the neighborhood). So to say that an election over land use will be more clean and pure and honest and accurate than one for elected officials is nothing short of naive. And c'mon, now, that's Howard's job.