Column: Power to the people, right on, court rules

My print column today is about a new court ruling in favor of the Hometown Democracy movement -- the court struck down the law passed last year that allows voters to change their mind and revoke petition signatures once they have been signed.

The text of the column follows. Here's a copy of the court ruling: Download ruling.pdf

********************

Here is how it works in Florida:

If enough citizens sign a petition, they can put a proposed amendment to the state Constitution on the ballot.

The Constitution says so.

Here is the tricky part. The rules do not say that only "good" people get to petition, or only "smart" people, or only people that you or I like.

Nope. In fact, the chances are excellent that sooner or later, an idea that you personally cannot stand will reach the Florida ballot. It happens to me all the time.

When that happens, do you:

(1) Accept the fact that not everyone in a democracy agrees with you, and campaign to win the election?

Or do you:

(2) Keep trying to change the rules to make it harder for the people to get ideas on the ballot and passed at all?

This being Florida, we have opted for (2). And so in recent years our Legislature has adopted several ideas to crack down on petitions.

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

Sunday column: The case against Hometown Democracy

The argument being made against Florida Hometown Democracy by big-money groups translates to:

AAAAHH! AAAAH! AAAAH! If you vote for Hometown Democracy, your tongue will turn purple. Florida will sink into the sea. Evil people who smell bad are behind it. Only an IDIOT would vote for it.

One example of this rhetoric, as we saw recently, was the sleazy letter signed by John Thrasher, a Tallahassee lobbyist carrying water for the anti-Hometown crowd.

Thrasher's letter tried to drum up fear toward a mysterious group known as "electors" who would take over this state if Hometown Democracy passes.

"Electors," of course, means the voters. Thrasher was trying to demagogue voters into fearing themselves.

Yep, the big-money boys are being driven bug-eyed crazy at the thought of voters taking over control of growth in Florida. They can't mount a coherent campaign. All they can do is jabber threats and insults.

So, I thought I'd help out.

Even though I'm perfectly okay with Hometown Democracy, there are arguments against putting voters directly in control of growth decisions. Here are just a few... [rest of column]

In Which I Am Called Out On Hometown Democracy...

Here's a good comment about yesterday's column on Hometown Democracy. I thought I'd re-post it here for everybody to see, along with my reply that follows in the post beneath this one.

Troxler writes: "Let's scare people instead. Let's tell 'em taxes will go up, their kids will hate them, and more hurricanes will hit. "Oh, and let's also tell 'em that an evil, mysterious group known as the "electors" will be running Florida. Surely they won't stand for that."

Which, Howard, is exactly what the pro-HD folks do to get signatures, only they use different bogeymen, different lies. They say evil developers are to blame (the same ones that built their homes when they invaded, but they were OK to move here). They say the state will be paved and there will be gridlock and no water and concrete canyons. Yet you don't seem to mind this hyperbole because it serves your purpose. Do you want to make a fair analysis of this issue, or do you just want to get the readers' blood up? We know, it's the latter.

Not to mention that you and the HD folks conveniently forget that cities and counties do not have the final say on comp plan changes, nor are their decisions simple one-off votes. There are at least two and often many more public hearings and those changes have to run a gantlet up to DCA and back down again and must meet approval at every step. Even after those approvals, citizens can still challenge such changes and can even appeal to the point of an administrative hearing. So it's not as simple as you'd like to make it.

Florida has a long history of bad planning. The GMA [Growth Management Act] was a valiant if underpowered effort to correct that, and even it has been hobbled since. But to say that the process is completely corrupt and only a plebiscite will fix it is just plain wrong. For you not to point out the subtleties is even more wrong because, wonder of hyphosis and ignorance, people believe what you write, rather than figure it out themselves. 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.

Troxler writes:
"As I keep saying, there is an interesting debate to be had on Hometown Democracy.

"But I think that Associated Industries and other opponents don't want one."

You don't want one either, Howard. You don't want a solution, you want a drum to pound.

Finally: So your premise (don't pretend to be neutral) is that corrupt officials are to blame and instead the people must vote. If voters are so smart, why did they elect the bad officials in the first place?

Posted by: nelson | September 18, 2007 at 05:59 PM

... 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

Hometown Democracy, Cable TV Channels

I said a couple of times last week that I figured on writing my Sunday column about the recent deceptive mailing being sent out by Florida's business groups fighting the Hometown Democracy movement.

But on Saturday, our Tallahassee bureau chief Steve Bousquet wrote an informative column on the same subject, making it clear where the mailing was coming from. The letter was signed by John Thrasher, former speaker of the state House, who claimed that Hometown Democracy (which seeks local voter control over growth in this state) was being backed by "big developers." Bousquet noted:

It's certainly worth debating whether Hometown Democracy will have a devastating effect on Florida's economy. But it's not pushed by "big developers."

Nowhere in his three-page letter did Thrasher find space to list his occupation.

He's a highly paid lobbyist for Southern Strategy Group, which represents progrowth businesses like Disney, Associated Industries of Florida, the firm directing the revocation drive, and St. Joe Co., a "big developer" if ever there was one.

Since I was going to say exactly the same thing, and I think it will have more impact if I wait briefly before saying it again, I switched gears on Friday. I wrote for Sunday about the fate of access channels on Bright House Networks, the biggest cable company in the Tampa Bay area. I said it was a shame that Bright House wants to move our democracy to a higher digital tier of channels that will cost more to view. At the same time, I criticized local governments for trying to get rid of public access channels. Here's the column.

Ban All Petitions -- Or Take Sides, And Risk Customers?

Although Gov. Charlie Crist earlier vetoed one bill that would have cracked down on citizen petitions, he also has chosen to sign Senate Bill 1920, which allows supermarkets, big stores and other "quasi-public" places to keep citizen petition groups off their property. Several citizen groups had asked him for a veto. I explored the issue in a column earlier this year.

"While I am sympathetic to the concerns of political groups who seek to advocate their positions in places where citizens gather," the governor wrote in his message approving the bill, "the solution to that problem cannot be to force all grocers, shopkeepers, and restaurateurs to acquiesce to potentially disruptive activity at their commercial establishments." Here's a copy of his letter: [Download sb_1920_sign_ltr.pdf]

So the retailers win this one. In a way, though, I wonder if this puts them under the ancient Chinese curse of getting what they wish for. If they now choose to allow some petitions and disallow others, it puts them into the side business of taking sides on political issues -- a bad idea if you are selling groceries, seems to me. They might think it easiest to ban ALL petitions, but I imagine sooner or later they will find one they like, and then they'll look inconsistent if they allow it.

The Governor Vetos The Anti-Petition Bill

My June 19 column argued that Gov. Charlie Crist should veto Senate Bill 900, which tries to crack down even further on citizen petitions in the state of Florida. The most offensive part of the bill said that petition signatures would be valid for only 30 days before they had to be turned in -- a ridiculous restriction.

The governor vetoed the bill on Tuesday. It was the last day he could act before it would have become law automatically. Here's a copy of his veto letter: [Download sb_900_veto.pdf] I really liked this paragraph:

 

As my column pointed out, we already have imposed three important restrictions on petitions and we should give them time to work:

* It takes 60 percent to pass a constitutional amendment.

* Petitions have to be turned in by Feb. 1 of an election year.

* In another law just passed by the Legislature and signed by Crist, citizens have the right to REVOKE their signatures as well.

That's enough. Senate Bill 900 was just piling on. If you want to see the attitude at work, go read some of the outraged insider comments (made anonymously, of course) on my sister-blog, The Buzz, where Crist is basically getting called a Commie for sticking up for the right to petition.

Tuesday Column: Veto It? Heck, Tear It Up And Torch It

Quick - what's your favorite First Amendment right?

It's a trick question, sorry. In my book they're all equally essential to a free nation.

Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom of assembly.

There's one more ...

The right to "petition the government for redress of grievances." It comes last, but it's just as important.

When the framers put the word "petition" in the Bill of Rights, they meant it in a general sense.

But I have always believed that the literal act of petition - a citizen asking other citizens for support - is as pure an exercise of our core First Amendment rights as can be.

Here in Florida, though, there has been a war on petitions in recent years. Our Legislature and the business interests of Florida have sought to limit the power of the citizens to amend our state Constitution by petition... [rest of column]