Perhaps the high-speed rail measure doesn't belong in the state Constitution, but voters made their wishes clear and lawmakers ought to take them seriously.

We can agree that amending the state Constitution is not the best way to force the Legislature to build a high-speed rail to link Florida's major cities. But 53 percent of voters approved the amendment, and state officials should take the voters seriously.

"Typically, when the people speak on an issue like this, their elected representatives respect their will," said John Sowinski, spokesman for the pro-rail group.

That is what we should expect. Instead, incoming House Speaker Tom Feeney is busy laying barriers across the rail. Feeney suggested that the Legislature would give Floridians the choice between constructing high-speed rail and fully funding Medicare and schools. "Or maybe we could ask voters if they want to get rid of the prohibition against an income tax and fund (the rail)," he said.

If Feeney and other opponents of the amendment would stop insulting the voters and listen to what they are saying, lawmakers might be able to work out a compromise that is beneficial to all.

Yes, constitutional amendments should be reserved for changing the authority or responsibility of government and not for forcing massive capital projects on the Legislature. But the high-speed rail initiative survived the scrutiny of the Florida Supreme Court and the vote of the people.

The Legislature could ignore the issue as it has other initiatives, such as those making English the state's official language and requiring the polluters to pay for Everglades cleanup. That would be wrong, however. If Floridians were trying to get the Legislature's attention to begin dealing with traffic gridlock within and between crowded cities, then lawmakers should respond with a realistic plan.

High-speed rail will be expensive, and the amendment's requirement that construction begin in three years sounds premature. But isn't high-speed rail a credible solution to the state's transportation problems in the future? If so, it is not too early to start planning.

Some lawmakers say they want to present another choice to the voters, asking them to approve or reject a funding method for high-speed rail. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is a serious attempt to find a responsible source of revenue for the project. Florida voters will probably accept a longer timetable as well, if they believe state leaders are working on a solution. It doesn't help legislators' credibility when the paving industry -- which profits from roads but not rails -- is seen working shoulder to shoulder with lawmakers to thwart the voters' will.

The attempt may have been awkward, even misguided, but the message has merit: Florida residents want their leaders to begin work on resolutions to the state's growing transportation problem. It deserves a serious response.

Back to Perspective

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page