“Vote No On 4″ Campaign Launches Web Video on Amendment 4
Video tells the story of St. Pete Beach, the first town in Florida to adopt a local version of Amendment 4
(Orlando, FL – March 10, 2010) Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy today stepped up its campaign against Amendment 4, launching a web video on St. Pete Beach–the first community in Florida to adopt a local version of the proposed constitutional amendment. The video can be viewed online at www.florida2010.org.
“St. Pete Beach is proof positive that Amendment 4 doesn’t work,” said Ryan Houck, executive director of Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy. “This idea has led to higher property tax rates, fewer jobs and endless litigation in St. Pete Beach. It’s the last thing Florida needs in the midst of a recession.”[i]
While Florida voters are set to soon decide the fate of Amendment 4 – a statewide Vote on Everything initiative – St. Pete Beach voters have already chosen to rein in their own local experiment by a decisive margin.
Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy leads opposition to Amendment 4, coordinating a grassroots network of more than 30 campaign chairs and over 1300 volunteers. To date, more than 220 organizations have opposed Amendment 4. More join the fight every day.
The St. Pete Beach TIMELINE:
November, 2006: St. Pete Beach narrowly adopts a local version of Amendment 4, requiring a referendum for all changes to the local comprehensive plan. Amendment 4 supporters promise that they just want to give “the people a right to vote.”
June, 2008: St. Pete Beach voters approve a new comprehensive plan at the ballot box.
June, 2008: After losing the election, Amendment 4 supporters in St. Pete Beach file a string of legal challenges to invalidate the will of the people.
September, 2008: Numerous administrative challenges are subsequently filed by Amendment 4 co-author and co-founder Ross Burnaman.
June, 2009: The St. Petersburg Times reports that St. Pete Beach has exhausted its legal budget months before the end of the fiscal year.[ii]
September, 2009: Amidst rising legal bills, St. Pete Beach raises the property tax rate.[iii]
October, 2009: Court-ordered mediation collapses when Amendment 4 supporters refuse to join the City and the business community in supporting a compromise.[iv]
[i] St. Petersburg Times on September 22, 2009 (“St. Pete Beach tax rates goes up, but will it be felt?”): http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/st-pete-beach-tax-rate-goes-up-but-will-it-be-felt /1038346
[ii] St. Petersburg Times on June 1, 2009 (“St. Pete Beach’s legal costs bust budget”)
[iii] St. Petersburg Times on September 22, 2009 (“St. Pete Beach tax rates goes up, but will it be felt?”): http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/st-pete-beach-tax-rate-goes-up-but-will-it-be-felt/1038346
[iv] St. Petersburg Times on November 4, 2009 (“Mediator declares impasse in talks to end St Pete Beach development lawsuits”): http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/mediator-declares-impasse-in-talks-to-end-st-pete-beach-development/1049083
For more information go to: http://Florida2010.org
Issues Forum Recap: Defeating Amendment 4
For CPR readers who missed last Friday’s successful Issues Forum event, here is a quick recap:
Approximately 130 property owners and elected officials from across Central Florida gathered in Orlando for CPR’s Winter 2010 Issues Forum, “Defeating Amendment 4: The Challenge of Educating Florida’s Electorate.” The event was a resounding success!
A warm welcome was provided by CPR President Doug Doudney, followed by introductions by CPR Board Member and Master of Ceremonies Fred Leonhardt of the GrayRobinson law firm. Leonhardt introduced Event Sponsor Jonathan Moore of Acquisition Consultants (http://www.accommerical.com/) and Keynote Speaker John Sowinski of Consensus Communications, who is the general consultant to the “No on 4” campaign.
Attendees enjoyed an outstanding keynote address and a firsthand opportunity to learn more about the strategic effort underway to defeat Amendment 4 (the Hometown Democracy initiative) from Florida’s leading strategist on referendum campaigns.
Sowinski kicked off his presentation with a historical review of the political dynamics of Florida. He reminded attendees that we live in a political mega-state with unique factors to consider when waging statewide political campaigns to promote or defeat constitutional referendum. He also discussed specific factors influencing voter opinion, touching on specific impressions of native and non-native Floridians who migrated to the Sunshine State due to the climate and affordability on growth and development, as well as current sensitivities toward jobs and the economy. He also described factors which have influenced the passage or defeat of recent Constitutional referendum in Florida.
An insight he shared with the audience related to the “voter dashboard” as he described the comparative communications efforts to influence voter opinions relative to the issues already on their dashboards (or personal radar screens) vs. introducing new items into their field of vision.
Another key observation he shared was the impact of ballot placement. Just as individual candidates must take into account the placement and order in which their names on the physical ballot, this same principle applies to referendum campaigns. Sowinski asked attendees to consider the impact of where Amendment 4 falls on the ballot and how voters might be predisposed to vote on Amendments 1, 2, 3, 5, etc…
Sowinski shared examples of the practical costs which would result from Amendment 4’s passage, including the cost of elections (he showed a physical example of a full-scale 40 page ballot) which would be costly to print and for absentee/overseas military voters to return via post and the cost of litigation, as evidenced by the half-million dollar legal fees which have been incurred by the City of St. Pete Beach which adopted and then essentially repealed a local version of Amendment 4 when the negative economic impacts became evident.
There was little doubt left in the minds of attendees that Sowinski’s reputation as one of Florida’s premier referendum campaign strategists is well-earned. But, even more importantly, attendees left with a crystal clear awareness and optimism that Amendment 4 can be defeated by savvy strategy and the resources to educate Florida’s electorate on the impact of Amendment 4 on Florida’s economy.
CPR’s February 26th Issues Forum also included CPR’s inaugural “Candidates Forum.” At the conclusion of the keynote address, guests adjourned to an adjacent room for coffee, dessert and the opportunity to meet and mingle with candidates for local, state and federal office. Candidates participating or represented at this open-invitation forum included Congressional candidates Sandy Adams(Dist. 24), Peg Dunmire (Dist. 8), Bruce O’Donoghue(Dist. 
and Paul Partyka (Dist.24); State House candidates Lori Halbert (Dist. 31), Bryan Nelson (Dist. 38) and Steve Precourt (Dist. 41); State Senate candidates Jack Myers (Dist. 15), Orange County Mayoral candidates Matt Falconer, Mildred Fernandez, and Bill Segal; and Orange County Commission candidate Ted Edwards (Dist.5). Orange County Commissioner Fred Brummer and Apopka City Commissioner Kathy Till also attended (although not campaigning for re-election this cycle) along with Osceola County Manager Michael Freilinger. While CPR does not endorse or support candidates for public office, this fun educational forum provided a great new opportunity for property owners to learn more about local candidates and for candidates to learn about issues important to Florida property owners. Special thanks to CPR member, Earl M. Crittenden, Jr., Esquire, for sponsoring CPR’s first Candidates Forum!
EPA COMMENT PERIOD FOR PROPOSED REGULATION ENDS ON MARCH 29
In prior editions, CPR has updated its members on a new proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration which will dramatically impact Florida property owners. On February 16-17-18, citizens packed public hearings across Florida to protest this proposed rule change which will impact every property with any form of water inflow (rain) or outflow (stormwater runoff). This means all property owners in Florida will be affected. Florida property owners are asked to submit comments regarding this regulation which will uniquely burden Floridians. To view the proposed regulations known as, “Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters” please visit the federal www.regulations.gov website via the following direct link to this proposal where citizens can simply click on the “Submit A Comment” link: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a83e17. (For additional information on the nature of proposal, please revisit our January 13th edition http://www.proprights.com/newsviews/display_newsletter.cfm?ID=848 which contains additional background materials.) The “submit a comment” function of the federal website is very easy to use and citizens can also view the comments of other citizens submitted on this same subject.
SUPPORT CPR – JOIN OR RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY!
If you support private property rights and believe owners should have a voice actively promoting the inherent, natural rights of ownership, help CPR to continue to promote and defend property rights in Florida by joining as an official member. Your annual membership makes CPR activities and special events possible. Support property rights today by taking a moment or two to contribute online www.proprights.com/contribute/ or by calling CPR at 407-481-2289 for more detailed information on individual memberships or corporate sponsorships.
Reader feedback always welcomed! Carolsaviak@aol.com
Carol Saviak Executive Director Coalition for Property Rights 2878 S. Osceola Avenue Orlando, FL 32080 Telephone 407-481-2289 Fax 407-481-0834 http://www.proprights.com/Tampa lawyer talks shop over high-speed rail land grabs
High Speed Rail
We still don’t know whether the Tampa-to-Orlando high speed rail project is a boon or a boondoggle (I’m leaning towards boondoggle). But if the state fast-tracks this project, it will have to raze or relocate plenty of homes in and around Ybor City.
How should neighbors brace themselves for the prospective eminent domain takings? Be mean. And be clean. That was the consensus of about two dozen neighbors who gathered after-hours in Tampa this week.
The rail project, combined with the related widening of Interstates 4 and 275, promises to take a major chunk out of 12th Avenue on the edge of the Ybor historic district. As eminent domain attorney Andrew Diaz made clear to neighbors, the government has little incentive to offer the highest and best price for land it takes. Diaz offered advice for anyone facing an eminent domain case:
* Keep the property in good shape. The state will send out appraisers on which it will base it’s bid for the property. So you don’t want it looking like a dog house. Diaz cited families who, upon getting word that the government would widen 22nd Street in Palmetto, immediately moved out of their homes. The project was delayed and those families ultimately surrendered thousands of dollars they would have otherwise gotten.
* Summon a jury if you have to. Most of the time the government and homeowners can negotiate a fair price. But if all else fails, neighbors can demand a trial in front of a 12-person jury. The state has to pay the homeowner’s legal costs.
* Mum’s the word. Don’t talk to government officials about the case. They’re not your friends. Things you’ve said come back to haunt you in court. If you speculated your home is worth $100,000, how much do you want to bet the government’s offer won’t be a dime over that amount?
* Hire a lawyer. I know – this is self serving on Diaz’s part. But it makes sense. These lawyers work on contingency. Diaz gets a percentage of whatever he gets for the homeowner over and above the initial offer. That percentage is paid by the state, not the homeowner. He recounted a land grab to build a trolley station in front of the Tampa Marriott Waterside Hotel. The city initially offered $4.5 million. Diaz’s firm ultimately squeezed $9 million out of the government. The law firm collected $2.5 million in fees. But it didn’t come off the landowners’ hide.
Neighbors generally weren’t happy about the rail line. Several had just poured tens of thousands of dollars into their properties. But if the multi-billion-dollar project happens, they want full compensation. Is it worth building an expensive rail line to connect Ybor and Disney World, a trip that takes about an hour in your car? Let’s save that debate for another day.
NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS PROPOSED, DESPITE RECESSION
Logically, one would think a national and international economic crisis would be reason enough for halting the advancement of federal regulations - which stifle economic activity and decrease America’s global competitiveness - but this week we are profiling two more examples of new federal efforts aimed at constricting property rights and America’s prosperity.
HUD RULES POISED TO KILL OFF SEGMENT OF HOME BUYING MARKET
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is proposing a new set of rules which will dramatically restrict the ability of private property owners to purchase and self-finance the sales of homes. These new rules will effectively eliminate an important segment of the home buying/home financing market where sellers can now purchase homes from owners self-financing the purchase.
The proposed HUD Rules interpreting the federal SAFE mortgage act can be viewed at the following link: (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a6b033) or by going to the federal website (http://www.regulations.gov/) and entering keywords “hud” and “safe.” Although an indictment of our founders idea of limiting government, this innovative website is a centralized web-resource created to inform citizens of the array of proposed federal regulations and to provide a convenient mechanism for recording public comment.
Today, American property owners may make up to five seller financed transactions per year, before being subject to mortgage originator licensing. This law currently allows entrepreneurial property owners to buy a property, renovate it for sale and offer the property for purchase under the terms of a self-financed mortgage. This allows for a wide variety of investors to engage in these small scale real estate transactions and frequently results in improved properties, improved property values and the purchase and ownership of properties which might not occur in the traditional mortgage market. Many properties in need of extensive repair might not be financed through traditional institutional lender or public mortgage financing programs due to the age or condition of the property, the need for upgrades and some individuals may have situations which prevent them from qualifying for a traditional mortgage.
The current HUD proposal would eliminate all seller financing unless the seller either lives in the home or becomes a licensed mortgage originator.
This is another example of the federal government stepping in to eliminate private market competition. How else can one explain that their taxpayer-backed federal mortgage programs are routinely approved and expanded (while increasing the national deficit) and yet here they are seeking to curtail a private-market solution and interfere with the private home buyer/home-financing contracts of American citizens.
Regulations like this are frequently advanced “under the radar” of even industry watch-dog groups. CPR recently learned of this issue through an urgent alert issued by the Real Estate Investors Association (REIA).
Today, (2-16-2010) is the last day for official public comments on this issue. Property owners outraged about the proposed elimination of private financing should take 3-4 minutes today to comment on the record. This is your chance to have your voice heard on this important regulatory this issue. By using the www.regulations.gov website, you can also see your comments are posted directly to the federal record regarding these proposed new rules.
The REIA alert suggested all comments should including the recommendation that “the proposed rules to be changed so that private individuals can originate and service loans on properties they personally own.” The alert also suggested other idea points, including: * bank loans are not available on some types of properties * the tight lending climate has made bank financing “out of reach” for many buyers * seller financing is an “age old” tradition based on private property rights * these rules would prohibit even partial seller financing – i.e. a “seller second” * according to HUD’s “Residential Finance Survey” in 2001, roughly 40% of all non-farm residential properties in the US are owned free and clear * an estimated 6 million Americans own a property other than their own primary residence * an estimated 4.5% of Americans own three or more properties, many purchased solely as investment properties * 40% of non-owner occupied residences are mobile homes which are more difficult to sell with bank financing * approximately 5% of homes in US are for sale or for lease * seller financing may be key to liquidating this inventory.
EPA HEARINGS ON NEW FLORIDA WATER REGULATIONS
Last month, CPR alerted its members to another serious regulatory threat facing Florida land owners. This week, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding public hearings in Florida (February 16-18) for the purpose of seeking citizen input on a new set of numeric nutrient criteria for water runoff in the State of Florida. These criteria will be the basis for a new set of broad-reaching water regulations which will uniquely penalize Florida land owners and businesses.
The voice of impacted Florida land owners must be heard and placed on the official record at these hearings. The EPA must be made aware of the negative consequences to Florida property owners and businesses. Strong citizen participation at these hearings is necessary to send a message regarding the sheer insanity of enacting new, burdensome regulations during a recession.
Land owners can attend one of the six public hearings being held February 16, 17 &18 to learn more and let your voice be heard. In order to participate in the public workshop, citizens are required to register online: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ost/WaterSciHearingReg.nsf/SignUp_Web?OpenForm but do not let this registration process deter you from attending, even if you can only stay for a few minutes at the beginning of the hearing.
The dates and locations of the public hearings:
- Tallahassee – February 16, 2010, 1:00-5:00 p.m. and 7:00-10:00 p.m., Holiday Inn Capitol East,1355 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida.
- Orlando – February 17, 2010, 1:00-5:00 p.m. and 7:00-10:00 p.m., Crowne Plaza Orlando Universal, 7800 Universal Boulevard, Orlando, Florida.
- West Palm Beach – February 18, 2010, 1:00-5:00 p.m. and 7:00-10:00 p.m., Holiday Inn Palm Beach Airport, 1301 Belvedere Road, West Palm Beach, Florida.
Additional background information:
- Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) has produced an outstanding Statement of Concern Regarding Proposed New Water Quality Regulations for the State of Florida which all Florida land owners should review: https://ssl.capwiz.com/flfb/attachments/NN_Statement_of_Concern___AIF_Final.pdf
- To view the Florida Farm Bureau’s Ag Policy Bulletin on this critical issue, please visit: http://www.capwiz.com/flfb/issues/alert/?alertid=14542881
- To review a collective letter sent to Florida’s Congressional Delegation which land owners can use as a sample for communications, please visit: https://ssl.capwiz.com/flfb/attachments/111309_DelegationLetter.pdf
REGISTER TODAY FOR CPR’s UPCOMING LUNCHEON EVENT: DEFEATING AMENDMENT 4
Register today for CPR’s upcoming Issues Forum luncheon and candidates forum on Friday, February 26 from 11:30 to 1 p.m. at the Country Club of Orlando. This special event, “Defeating Amendment 4: The Challenge of Educating Florida’s Electorate” will feature Florida’s leading expert on referendum campaigns, John Sowinski of Consensus Communications. Property owners can also meet & mingle with candidates for state and local office at a special candidates forum following the keynote presentation. Tickets are $40 pp or $300 for a corporate table of 8. Register today online at February26rsvp@gmail.com or by calling 407-481-2289. No Florida property owner should miss this event!
*** THANK YOU! This special event has been sponsored by ACQUISITION CONSULTANTS (http://www.accommercial.com/). ***
Reader responses welcomed! Carolsaviak@aol.com
Carol Saviak Executive Director Coalition for Property Rights 407-481-2289 407-481-0834 fax www.proprights.comCPR INVITATION: FEBRUARY 26 EVENT ON AMENDMENT 4 & CANDIDATES FORUM
* * * SPECIAL INVITATION * * *
You are cordially invited
to attend
The Coalition for Property Rights’ Winter 2010 Issues Forum
DEFEATING AMENDMENT 4:
The Challenge of Educating Florida’s Electorate
Featuring consultant and strategist
JOHN SOWINSKI
of CONSENSUS COMMUNICATIONS
Friday, February 26, 2010
11:30 - 1 p.m.
Country Club of Orlando
1601 Country Club Drive, Orlando
Cost: $40 pp / $300 corporate table (8)
* * *
Florida is currently facing one of the greatest threats to private property rights in our state’s history: Amendment 4 (The Hometown Democracy initiative). Amendment 4 is being called “the nail in Florida’s economic coffin.” If passed, it could result in the devaluation of tens of thousands of acres of land in Florida and could render even small parcels of land effectively worthless.
If Amendment 4 is passed, landowners will lose their right to self-determine how their property is used and the protections historically afforded by representative government. Landowners have the most at stake and the most to lose if Amendment 4 were to pass.
What do property owners need to know about Amendment 4 and the strategic effort to educate Florida’s voters on the negative consequences of this anti-property rights amendment?
CPR is pleased to announce a unique opportunity for Florida property owners to gather and hear the answer to this question directly from one of our state’s most respected experts on constitutional referendum campaigns and the general consultant leading the “No on 4″ campaign. This is a presentation no property owner in Florida should miss!
* * *
KEYNOTE SPEAKER: John Sowinski is a founding partner of Consensus Communications with more than 20 years experience in public policy, media relations, message development, and paid media management. He is a veteran of numerous statewide political, issue and corporate campaigns, and specializes in high-stakes communications and advocacy strategy and implementation.
John is regarded as Florida’s premier expert on statewide referendum campaigns, having led seven successful statewide referendum campaigns including the 1992 “Eight is Enough” term limits campaign; the 1994 “Net Ban” campaign; the 1994 “No Casinos” campaign; the 1996 campaign against a proposed tax of Florida sugar; the 2000 campaign in support of high speed rail; the 2002 Smoke Free Workplace initiative; and the 2006 youth tobacco prevention initiative. John also served as General Consultant for the Mel Martinez for Senate campaign in 2004 and is currently the general consultant for the “No on 4″ campaign, which is opposing the so-called “Hometown Democracy” amendment.
* * *
And there’s more…
2010 CANDIDATES FORUM
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING KEYNOTE PRESENTATION
MEET & MINGLE WITH CANDIDATES FOR LOCAL & STATE OFFICES
* * *
Please make plans today to join us for this special event!
REGISTER TODAY via email to February26RSVP@gmail.com or by telephone 407-481-2289.
CPR readers are strongly encouraged to forward this invitation on to their e-networks. Invite friends, business associates and elected guests to join you for lunch on Friday, February 26th!
CPR Issues Forums are unique opportunities to hear state and national policy experts discuss current events and issues which directly impact your property and your freedom! We guarantee that all attendees will thoroughly enjoy the policy discussion and targeted networking which these special events offer. RSVP Today!
|
International Study Cites Erosion of Property Rights in America
February 2, 2010
According to a recently-released international study of world economies, the United States continues its dangerous slide down the ranks of the world’s freest economies. America’s slippage in international rankings is directly attributed to the erosion of private property rights.
The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom is a comprehensive study of the economies of 183 countries around the world. It ranks 179 of them with an economic freedom score based on 10 measures of economic openness, regulatory efficiency, the rule of law, and competitiveness. The basic principles of economic freedom emphasized in the Index are individual empowerment, equitable treatment, and the promotion of competition. The index is a product of the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal.
The 10 economic factors analyzed in the Index are:
- Business freedom
- Trade freedom
- Fiscal freedom
- Government spending
- Monetary freedom
- Investment freedom
- Financial freedom
- Property rights
- Labor freedom
- Freedom from corruption
According to the study, “The United States’ economic freedom score is 78.0 (on a scale from 0 to 100), making its economy the 8th freest in the 2010 Index. Its score is 2.7 points lower than last year, reflecting notable decreases in financial freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights.” This international report affirms the vital economic importance of property rights and echoes the Coalition for Property Rights’ concerns regarding the erosion of property rights in America.
In the effort to assess, quantify and analyze the direct link between freedom on prosperity, the economists who created of this unique measurement tool believed property rights were a key component of economic freedom which must be calculated.
In defining “Property Freedom,” the study indicates, “The property rights component is an assessment of the ability of individuals to accumulate private property, secured by clear laws that are fully enforced by the state. It measures the degree to which a country’s laws protect private property rights and the degree to which its government enforces those laws. It also assesses the likelihood that private property will be expropriated and analyzes the independence of the judiciary, the existence of corruption within the judiciary, and the ability of individuals and businesses to enforce contracts. The more certain the legal protection of property, the higher a country’s score; similarly, the greater the chances of government expropriation of property, the lower a country’s score. Countries that fall between two categories may receive an intermediate score.”
The study clearly noted a decreasing level of protection of property rights in America.
Many Americans perceive that the United States is “the freest nation in the world” and in many respects we may remain #1, but this annual study once again leaves no doubt that the America economy is no longer the freest in the world. Economic freedom in America has been decreasing under our watch.
If trends continue, including the growth and expansion of government authority over private property, the increased regulation of land use at the local level and the diminished protections of private property by our American judiciary, we will inevitably continue this slippage.
One of the goals of the study is to demonstrate the direct linkage between freedom and prosperity. All 183 countries are assessed using the same measurement tools and standardized analysis. In its past few editions, the Index of Economic Freedom has specifically referenced the erosion of private property rights in America.
America property and business owners must recognize the inherent danger of America’s slide among the world’s freest economies. When we cease to be free, we will cease to be prosperous.
If we hope to witness America’s economic revitalization in our lifetimes, our nation’s score in the area of property rights must be improved.
Additional reading:
- 2010 Index of Economic Freedom: http://www.heritage.org/Index/
- Executive Summary: http://www.heritage.org/Index/pdf/2010/Index2010_ExecutiveHighlights.pdf
- United States Overview http://www.heritage.org/Index/pdf/2010/countries/UnitedStates.pdf
UPCOMING CPR ISSUES FORUM EVENT: FEBRUARY 26
TAKE ACTION TODAY. SAVE THE DATE! CPR’s next Issues Forum luncheon event will be held on Friday, February 26th in Orlando. Our upcoming forum will feature expert analysis of Amendment 4 (the Hometown Democracy initiative) and a special opportunity for land owners to meet local elected leaders and candidates for public office. Corporate sponsorships are still available. For more information, please call Carol at 407-481-2289.
UPDATE ON MAITLAND DRIVE-THRU MORATORIUM
Despite strong argument by the Coalition for Property Rights, the Maitland City Council voted to enact a baseless moratorium on new commercial construction with drive-thru elements in Downtown Maitland. However, Mayor Doug Kinson and several Council members did vocalize support and concerns for the private property rights of affected land owners. At the Mayor’s suggestion, they reduced the timeframe of the moratorium from one year with a clause allowing them the ability to extend these restrictions indefinitely to a six-month moratorium with a clause limiting its extension to four additional months. While disappointed with passage of the moratorium, CPR was pleased our participation in the public hearings was a factor which encouraged the Council to reduce the time-period this prohibition would be applied.
LANDOWNERS FOR LIBERTY
If you are a Florida property owner who values your rights and freedoms, join CPR today and support our work to promote and defend your private property rights. If you are a professional working in an arena where you witness the erosion of private property rights, we invite you to join CPR today. The problems we are all witnessing is the result of citizens bearing silent witness to this erosion. It is time for a different tack. We can no longer be quiet and watch our freedom as Americans being voted away. JOIN CPR. ADD VOLUME TO OUR COLLECTIVE VOICE. Join online at www.proprights.com/contribute/ or by calling 407-481-2289 for detailed information regarding individual membership and corporate sponsorships.
Reader responses welcomed! carolsaviak@aol.com
Carol Saviak Executive Director Coalition for Property Rights 2878 S. Osceola Avenue Orlando, FL 32806 407-481-2289 telephone 407-481-0834 faxThe Phrase that Pays
January 26, 2010
This week’s newsletter offers support to our elected readership who are facing votes on local and statewide issues affecting private property rights!
There is a simple six-word phrase which elected officials can use when voting to support any land use decision which conveys that they possess the character, integrity and courage to vote to uphold America’s foundation of freedom. That phrase is: “I strongly support private property rights.”
There is no better line to use when one is watching and listening to the passionate appeals of those protesting another citizen’s exercise of land use rights. In more common vernacular, these vocal third-party protesters are often referred to as NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) or CAVErs (Citizens Against Virtually Everything).
What political defense do politicians have in their quivers to use when facing citizens who are angry and generally caustic in vocalizing their belief that while they have a right to own property and have benefited from the ability to freely live and work in buildings previously developed, that others seeking this exact same right should be denied this opportunity because the application is offensive to those who exercised these rights previously.
What defense should well-polished politicians employ when sitting across the dias from complete hypocrites?
The best defense is to claim the intellectual high ground.
There is no stronger defense in American politics than to vocally support freedom and individual economic opportunity.
When facing those who are seeking to deny fellow citizens the ability to exercise freedom and to work to improve their socio-economic condition through the improvement of private land, the best verbal defense is to articulate one’s support for private property rights. When one vocally supports freedom, it quickly ends the debate.
The NIMBYs and CAVERs leaving the commission chambers unsatisfied may bluster and fume, a few may even wave a pointed finger and threaten you have lost their votes next election cycle, but they will each understand that they witnessed an official who took a principled stand for freedom. They will not be pleased, but there is generally no pleasing this manner of individual. After all, these citizens elected to spend the better part of their day lobbying against individual liberty and will naturally be disappointed when liberty prevails.
It should be noted that many individuals who protest rural development and suburban sprawl and yet also protest infill development when and if it occurs next to them. Some may self-cloak themselves with the banner of environmentalism, and yet live and work in buildings with the same impact and “carbon footprints” as the application they are protesting. These individuals typically want “their” elected officials to forget the economic opportunity from which all existing residents now benefit occurred due to the development of once pristine land. Development must not have been a bad thing when these NIMBYs benefitted from it and neither was growth in population a problem when these NIMBYs were born or moved here.
Politicians should understand there is no land use vote which will content those who believe land use rights were meant to be exclusive right guaranteed to them alone. The application itself offended these individuals.
When facing angry activists and witnessing the type of civic ugliness once reserved for venues like the “Jerry Springer Show,” officials must recognize these protests and protesters for what they are. They are citizens actively seeking to advance their own self-interests and agenda by suppressing the rights and socio-economic opportunities of others.
Their growing presence at local land use hearings represents the failure of America’s greatest generations to teach and convey the value of individual labor and individual achievement. There is no better example of the ability to freely labor and to achieve than a local land use application. The applicant is a citizen who is actively seeking to create value through their labor with the hope of improving their economic situation. They are seeking permission simply to exercise the right to move forward with their own personal initiative, labor and investment.
Land use applicants are active entrepreneurs in our society. How often do we forget the time and toil which preceded their applications?
When voting and vocalizing support for private property rights, elected officials are sending an important message to the applicant and to society that labor, risk and entrepreneurial endeavor are valued.
In contrast, when pandering to NIMBYs or CAVErs, elected officials are sending the exact opposite message. They are diminishing the value of labor, risk and investment. They may also be indicating their character, integrity and votes are for sale – not necessarily in dollars - but by the promise of votes from a select number of self-interested citizens who believe freedom and opportunity are ideals best forgotten or pushed aside when these ideas conflict with their individual viewpoints.
The question every elected official faces when voting on controversial land use issues which may have attracted NIMBYs is a simple and fundamental one, “To Pander or Not to Pander?” or “Do I vote in support of principle of basic freedom or do I abandon that ideal to earn a relative handful of votes?”
We live in a free nation due to the character of America’s founding fathers who held fast to their convictions and designed a government they hoped would survive future generations of NIMBYs and CAVErs. Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers or any of the foundational writings by the drafters of our U.S. Constitution cannot fail to appreciate the design of America’s unique form of government was created to address the very issue of self-interested third parties who they predicted would actively lobby against the rights and freedoms of other citizens.
The land use decisions which elected officials face in 2010 are no different and no more complex than the issues which faced our nation’s founders in the late 1700s.
Human nature is still human nature. In politics, true character and courage is exhibited when one votes for what is right, when it is not convenient to do so.
For officials compelled to try to explain their votes for freedom to self-interested NIMBYs or CAVErs in the audience, the phrase, “I support the applicant’s property rights,” leaves no doubt that one is standing firmly for freedom and for individual economic opportunity.
And as we have seen from the recent Senatorial election in Massachusetts, in 2010, those two basic ideals can be very valuable planks in one’s political campaign platform.
Reader responses always welcomed! Carolsaviak@aol.com
Carol Saviak Executive Director Coalition for Property Rights 2878 S. Osceola Avenue Orlando, FL 32806 407-481-2289 407-481-0834 fax www.proprights.comIs Florida Planning Away Its Prosperity?
January 19, 2010
In their descriptions of legislative attempts to help fix Florida’s property rights problems and jumpstart Florida’s economy, some environmental advocates and members of the news media have “spun” these actions as “gutting” Florida’s growth management system. Citizens must keep in mind that the term “growth management” is simply an artfully-employed political turn of phrase designed to keep the focus off individual freedom, personal liberty and the importance of private property rights.
What did we have prior to Florida’s increasingly burdensome Growth Management system? Freedom.
Land owners had the freedom to build their individual dreams.
What will occur if lawmakers restore freedom by removing the layers and layers of regulation strangling Florida’s economy? We will again unleash the potential of the human spirit to dream and to build.
Currently in Florida, there are at a minimum over a dozen large-scale land owners who have brought forward their ideas for improving their land. In planner-speak, their dreams have been labeled “D.R.I.s” or developments of regional impact. These dreams potentially represent billions of dollars of future economic investment in our state, tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in future taxable property value, IF their plans are approved. However, to land owners, the multi-year, multi-million dollar D.R.I. approval process generally equates to “dreams restricted indefinitely.”
Given Florida’s economy, one would think that local and state officials would be actively engaged in removing impediments to known economic opportunities. The dreams of these land owners are well-known. Some have been languishing in the tar-pit which is Florida’s land use planning system for several years.
With Florida’s anticipated state revenue shortfalls this year and in subsequent years, the potential for lawmakers to trigger significant statewide increases in taxable property value at the same time they are actively restoring freedom and the dreams of individuals would seem a “no-brainer.”
Florida’s multi-layered system of anti-property rights regulations is working. The dreams of private property owners are being very effectively curtailed every day in Florida, to the detriment of the ideal of individual freedom and our economy. The lost opportunity costs are staggering and will continue unless reforms are passed.
To understand how absolutely insane regulation has become, one need only sit for a few hours in almost any planning and zoning meeting in the state in which future land use label change applications are heard. One would think these forums were criminal courts, as property owners are now treated like criminals for having the audacity to work hard, acquire property and seek to take the risk of investing private capital to improve their land. Members of these local planning commissions should wear uniforms to more appropriately reflect the dramatic increase in the police power of the state over land use, which they exercise regularly in denying perfectly reasonable land use applications and in killing the economy opportunities pursued by fellow citizens.
Land owners can now find their dreams denied for reasons so flimsy and baseless that they would not be believable if this didn’t occur every day. Those who do not desire or cannot afford to litigate are simply stripped of the right to pursue the use of their land.
One would think that a national recession and double-digit unemployment rates might shift the attitude of these citizen panels, but this writer has not witnessed any change in these anti-property rights environments where it is anyone’s guess as to whether or not a land use application will be found “consistent” or not.
Florida’s Growth Management laws now allow these citizen panels to require as much as 65% and 70% “open space” to be set aside if a land owner desires to use their land. Consider the implications of this overlay, if applied to your single family lot. (How would you like seven other citizens deciding you should be prohibited from using two-thirds of your home?) In some areas, simply changing a few words in the local comprehensive plan or a label or color-code on a land use map, results in the denial of land use rights. Some of the discussions occuring when land use maps are changed are so absurd as to be farsical. It equates to adults coloring in a coloring book and as a group debating what colors will go where. But the ramifications for Florida are extraordinary. These shifting labels often represent the denial of individual dreams and the loss of tens of thousands and even millions of dollars in future economic revenue.
Land use in Florida prior to the adoption these draconian policies may have been imperfect, as are many of the decisions made in a free society. Government’s reaction to the exercise of private property rights may also have been imperfect, as many actions of government are. However, at least the opportunity to use land in the pursuit of your dream effectively existed. In Florida’s current kangaroo court system, dreams are denied left and right based on personalities and the personal viewpoints of a handful of individuals.
It is the contention of this writer, that any land use application in Florida can be found “consistent” or “inconsistent” – which means Florida land owners are subjected to the “whims” of the individuals reviewing their applications.
Anyone who has witnessed the arbitrary nature of how comprehensive plans are developed should recognize these laws provide no protection to the affected property owners. It is a completely arbitrary process, where citizens’ panels charged with creating new labels and restrictions bandy about figures as if these numbers did not affect anyone’s private land or private investments. What we have now is effectively a “SimCity” environment which has converted once private land to publicly-planned acreages. Florida’s current land use laws now empower legions of petty dictators who sit on these boards and sanctimoniously kill the dreams of other citizens.
These planning commissions impact Florida’s economy at every meeting.
A few years ago, the Coalition for Property Rights lobbied aggressively for changes in Florida law, in order to protect Florida land owners from the results of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision which eroded historical protections afforded to those whose homes or properties were taken through eminent domain. The Supreme Court decision which empowered government to take private property and to transfer it to other private parties (“Trading up” to increase tax revenue) was wrong. There are rights and wrongs in public policy and many times we forget this simple principle. It was wrong to use the police power of government to take private property from one owner and to give it to another.
The current empowerment of citizen panels over private property rights at the local level in Florida is equally wrong.
When no potential threat to the public’s health or safety exists, it is wrong to deny any land owner in Florida the inherent rights of ownership. It is wrong to convert private land to public property without compensating the owner for this taking. Yet, under Florida’s draconian land use laws, this is occurs every week, because the land owner/applicant may have a dream for their property that is not the dream of the panel reviewing their request or even unrelated third parties who attend the hearing to protest their application. Whenever this opinion occurs, their dreams are not surprisingly found “inconsistent” with the comprehensive plan.
On this day, their dream may be denied, be delayed, or be substantially altered with their coerced consent so that they do not risk losing their entire investment. When this occurs, a spark of ambition has just been extinguished in their hearts and the impact will be felt in our state economy.
It is a fundamental truth that human beings work hardest when they are each actively pursuing their own dreams. This is the fundamental reason why property rights are so often equated with prosperity. When an individual has the opportunity to own land and to build up their socioeconomic situation, they generally will. Land without the opportunity to use it, is not truly privately-owned land. The value of owning land is intrinsically tied to its use.
By refusing to reform state planning policies, Florida is most assuredly following California’s fiscal path. In choosing centralized planning over property rights, we are planning the end of our prosperity.
FIGHTING FOR CHANGE
If you are a Florida property owner whose freedom has been diminished and whose property has been devalued under Florida’s current land use regulations, we invite you to join CPR and help us work to change the status quo. Join today. Help reframe and reclaim the debate over land use rights in Florida. If private property rights and individual economic freedom are important to you, make the commitment today to support these values. Become a member online at http://www.proprights.com/ or by calling 407-481-2289 for more information about individual or corporate sponsorship.
Reader responses welcomed! carolsaviak@@aol.com
Carol Saviak Executive Director Coalition for Property Rights 2878 S. Osceola Avenue Orlando, FL 32806 407-481-2289 407-481-0834 fax www.proprights.comEPA Hearings on New Florida Water Regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new set of numeric nutrient criteria for water runoff in the State of Florida. The EPA will hold public hearings in Florida on February 16-18, 2010 for the purpose of seeking and recording citizen input on these changes. These criteria will be the basis for a new set of broad-reaching regulations which will uniquely penalize Florida land owners and businesses.
The voice of impacted Florida land owners must be heard and placed on the official record at these hearings. The EPA must be made aware of the negative consequences to Florida property owners and businesses. Strong land owner participation at these hearings is necessary to send a message regarding the political consequences of lawmakers enacting new, burdensome regulations during a recession.
DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS. LEARN MORE. HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD.
- Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) has produced an outstanding Statement of Concern Regarding Proposed New Water Quality Regulations for the State of Florida which all Florida land owners should review: https://ssl.capwiz.com/flfb/attachments/NN_Statement_of_Concern___AIF_Final.pdf
- To view the Florida Farm Bureau’s Ag Policy Bulletin on this critical issue, please visit: http://www.capwiz.com/flfb/issues/alert/?alertid=14542881
- To review a collective letter sent to Florida’s Congressional Delegation which land owners can use as a sample for communications, please visit: https://ssl.capwiz.com/flfb/attachments/111309_DelegationLetter.pdf
Florida land owners should plan to attend one of the six public hearings being held February 16, 17 &18 to learn more and let your voice be heard. In order to participate in the public workshop, citizens are required to register online: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ost/WaterSciHearingReg.nsf/SignUp_Web?OpenForm
The dates and locations of the public hearings:
- Tallahassee – February 16, 2010, 1:00-5:00 p.m. and 7:00-10:00 p.m., Holiday Inn Capitol East,1355 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida.
- Orlando – February 17, 2010, 1:00-5:00 p.m. and 7:00-10:00 p.m., Crowne Plaza Orlando Universal, 7800 Universal Boulevard, Orlando, Florida.
- West Palm Beach – February 18, 2010, 1:00-5:00 p.m. and 7:00-10:00 p.m., Holiday Inn Palm Beach Airport, 1301 Belvedere Road, West Palm Beach, Florida.
MAITLAND ADVANCES MORATORIUM ON DRIVE-THRUS
On Monday, January 11, after testimony offered by CPR and lengthy debate, the Maitland City Council voted 3-2 to advance a proposed one-year “Moratorium on Commercial Drive-Through Facilities.” At the hearing, Council members Dr. Jeff Flowers and Linda Frosch offered articulate and inspiring comments in opposition to the moratorium and should be applauded for having the intelligence and political “backbone” to oppose a completely unsubstantiated restriction on property rights. (CPR members can email these leaders at jflowers@itsmymaitland.com and lfrosch@itsmymaitland.com) Shamefully, two legal and real estate professionals serving on the Maitland City Council openly ignored the fact that there is absolutely no data or evidence supporting the need for this extreme regulatory sanction. No documentation or evidence was presented to the public to justify this measure. No testimony was offered by any public safety official as to specific problems relative to existing Maitland drive-thrus. Two City Council members, attorney Phil Bonus and teacher Bev Reponen, vocally declared the moratorium was necessary to conduct a drive-thru study and yet, humorously, during the discussion, each also commented on the official record they had no idea what exactly would be studied. In direct conflict with the purported “urgent need” to restrict the construction of new drive-thrus elements, these leaders also voted to include a special exception for public facilities when they realized the planned construction of a downtown Fire Station might be considered a drive-thru and could be delayed for up to a year. Apparently, the critical drive-thru/pedestrian interaction issue they are seeking to arrest through the moratorium does not apply to public properties. On this point, Dr. Flowers positively reiterated his strong “equal-schmequal” position that government should not elevate its rights and privileges above those of the people.
A second and final hearing on the moratorium is planned for Monday, January 25, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. (Ironically, the address of Maitland City Hall is 1776 Independence Lane.)
Florida High Speed Rail Rally
High Speed Rail
U.S. Senator Bill Nelson and U.S. Representatives Kathy Castor and Adam Putnam will host a rally Tuesday morning supporting the state’s High Speed Rail efforts. The rally will take place from 10:00 to 10:30 at the Tampa Union Station, 601 North Nebraska Avenue.
The rally will kick off a statewide campaign to reach out to the White House and demonstrate Florida’s support of the proposed High Speed Rail Project.
State officials hope to receive approximately $2.5 billion in federal stimulus funds to build the first leg of a statewide High Speed Rail project. The project’s first leg is expected to run from Orlando to Tampa, with possible stations at the Orlando International Airport, downtown Orlando, Disney World, Lakeland, and downtown Tampa. Federal officials are due to announce early this year the states that will receive the stimulus funds.
Pages
Categories
- Education (11)
- Eminent Domain (29)
- Florida Gas Transmission (1)
- Growth (5)
- Law (3)
- News (16)
- Transportation (3)
- Uncategorized (5)
Archives