Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Column

The case against Hometown Democracy

By HOWARD TROXLER
Published September 30, 2007

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:

-This is a republic, not a mob-ocracy. We elect leaders to study, consider and make complicated decisions. We don't decide them based on the whim of the crowd.

-Land use is technical, not political. Deciding what should go where involves many judgments ranging from infrastructure, traffic and water usage to the impact on schools and fire departments.

-Landowners have rights, too. Let's take the example of Citizen A and Citizen B, each trying to get a similar development approved by the voters. Citizen A is well known, and the voters buy it. Citizen B is a loner who doesn't run a campaign and loses.

Is that equal protection under the law - that your right to the fair use of your own private property in America depends on whether you please the crowd?

-It's just not practical to vote on everything. There's disagreement over just how many elections would be required under Hometown Democracy, but it's safe to say there would be more, placing demand on the electoral system and, uh, electors.

-There's no room for compromise. Today, opponents of a project sometimes are able to negotiate with the developer to win changes and concessions. Putting it on the ballot locks in the proposal and forces voters to make an all-or-nothing choice.

-Your neighbors can outvote you. The way it works now, a single, vocal, organized community can prevail upon elected officials. It might be much harder to sell an entire city or county, with potentially hundreds of thousands of voters - especially if the developer's side has the money to run a campaign.

-We'd be locking in existing sprawl. Everything bad about existing land use plans in Florida would be frozen by Hometown Democracy, requiring future elections to make changes that elected officials could do easily.

I'm not saying that I buy all or any of these arguments.

What I AM saying is that there's a debate to be had. So, for those opponents using the scare-and-lie tactics: Why don't y'all quit acting like goobers and treat the people of Florida like we've got some sense?

[Last modified September 29, 2007, 23:10:48]