Would you, as a St. Johns County voter, be FOR or AGAINST approval of a huge, sprawling housing complex on the St. Johns River?
It's a complicated issue, so let's go through the pros and cons together.
On the plus side, the developer -- and people who hold jobs related to housing, such as clearing land, building houses and installing air conditioners, for example -- would make a lot of money.
Hmm. That's about it.
On the negative side, traffic on scenic State Road 13 would become gridlocked. River pollution would increase dramatically due to construction runoff, increased numbers of boaters and golf course chemicals. The rural nature of the west county would be gone forever. In addition, infrastructure out there -- schools, roads, water, fire protection, law enforcement -- would cost much more than any tax base gained. So taxes would probably rise, again.
It's a maxim of government that residential housing does not pay for itself. So, how's your vote look now?
Vote for it? No?
Well, you really don't have a choice. Your elected officials already have approved Rivertown. And many, many other developments just like it.
Last week, I mentioned one way to slow down unrestricted growth: Buy undeveloped land and preserve it.
But this week I've learned there's an even better way to give voters a direct voice in their own environment -- the Florida Hometown Democracy amendment.
This is a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution that gives the public direct participation in planning.
I realize that the pregnant pig, bullet train and class-size amendments last election cycle gave these constitutional changes a bad name. But sometimes there's a good one in the mix, and this is one of those times.
County commissioners in every Florida county, not just here, make decisions every chance they get to change their comprehensive land use plans to suit the desires of developers.
They don't have to do so, but they do. Figure it out. Who are the largest contributors in county commission races? Developers!
This all seems like a conflict of interest in a very specific way, elected officials making decisions on issues where one side has given them money.
That's why the amendment seems like a great idea. It would require a referendum for adopting a new comprehensive land use plan or amending an existing one.
Why put those kind of decisions in the hands of people who have a vested interest in the outcome? Visit the site: FloridaHometownDemocracy.com.
Get a petition and mail it in. You've got nothing to lose but gridlock, pollution, loss of wildlife habitat, etc.
Some elected officials will caution you that they were elected to make those hard choices, and they listen to both sides before making a final choice. That is true.
But it is also true that once they listen to both sides, 99 times out of 100 they approve the development.
Perhaps with a few changes, perhaps with more recreation space or less density, but the bottom line is more housing, more traffic, more infrastructure costs.
County taxes just went up.
All our sitting county commissioners are Republicans, dedicated to holding the line on taxes.
But where's their dedication to holding the line on growth?
Perhaps it's time for voters to relieve them of that decision. So far, there hasn't been one huge project that they haven't eventually approved.
Read more Peter Guinta online
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
53° F
71° F
