Constitutional Amendment No. 4: Collins Center for Public Policy

AT A GLANCE: AMENDMENT 4

Sponsor/Originator: Florida Hometown Democracy

Title on Ballot: Referenda required for adoption and

amendment of local government comprehensive land

use plans.

Official Summary: Establishes that before a local

government may adopt a new comprehensive land use

plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the

proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote

of the electors of the local government by referendum,

following preparation by the local planning agency,

consideration by the governing body and notice.

What it would do: Amendment 4 would give local

voters a veto over changes in comprehensive plans.

Arguments for: Local governments have proven

themselves incapable of placing the public interest

before the interests of real estate developers. Let the

people vote on the proposed changes.

Arguments against: The amendment would require

votes on every change, no matter how minor.

Ballots would be long and involved. Voters would be

overwhelmed. Growth would grind to a halt, and the

state’s economy would remain mired in recession

Another Vote For Amendment 8

Another vote for amendment 8.  It seems reasonable not to run a school system based on very rigid formulas.

The 2002 class-size amendment basically mandated that elementary schools have a cap of 18 students per class, middle school 22, and high school 25. Amendment 8 would keep those caps as averages, giving districts leeway. And there would still be caps of 21, 27, and 30 respectively.

And it will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The group Florida TaxWatch estimates it will save at least $350 million a year. Newspaper reports have put the savings at $7 billion over the next ten years.

This is a no-brainer. Vote for Amendment 8.

via Broward Palm Beach – Broward Palm Beach News – The Daily Pulp: Bob Norman’s Blog.

Constitutional Amendment No. 2: Collins Center for Public Policy

AT A GLANCE: AMENDMENT 2

Sponsor/Originator: The Florida Legislature

Title on Ballot: Homestead ad valorem tax credit for

deployed military personnel

Official Summary: Proposing an amendment to the

State Constitution to require the Legislature to provide

an additional homestead property tax exemption

for members of the United States military or military

reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its

reserves, or the Florida National Guard who receive

a homestead exemption and were deployed in the

previous year on active duty outside the continental

United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military

operations designated by the Legislature. The exempt

amount will be based upon the number of days in the

previous calendar year that the person was deployed.

The amendment is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2011.

What it would do: Instruct the Legislature to enact an

additional homestead exemption for Florida homeowners

on active military service outside the country. The size

of the tax break would be based on the amount of time

served overseas in the previous year.

Arguments for: Military personnel based overseas

are performing important services for our country at

considerable sacrifice. This amendment would help

compensate them for that service.

Arguments against: Providing an additional exemption

to certain property owners would reduce tax collections

by hard-pressed local governments.

Constitutional Amendment No. 1: Collins Center for Public Policy

AT A GLANCE: AMENDMENT 1

Sponsor/Originator: The Florida Legislature

Title on Ballot: Repeal of public campaign financing

requirement

Official Summary: Proposing the repeal of the

provision in the State Constitution that requires

public financing of campaigns of candidates for elective

statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits

What it would do: Amendment 1 would end the

constitutional requirement for taxpayer financing of

political campaigns.

Arguments for: The state is experiencing tight financial

times. It makes no sense to spend taxpayers’ money

to subsidize campaigns when candidates can raise the

money themselves.

Arguments against: The people voted overwhelmingly

for the present public financing requirement 13 years

ago. Public financing reduces the effect of money on

politics and can open the door for candidates to run

without big-money backers.