TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - A group that wants voters to have the final say on where new homes, roads and other developments are built took a second shot Monday at getting approval from the Florida Supreme Court to put their plan on the ballot.
The justices narrowly rejected an earlier version of the proposed constitutional amendment. But they seemed more receptive because the amendment's sponsor deleted a sentence in the ballot summary that they had ruled was misleading and "emotional rhetoric." The high court made no immediate decision.
Florida Hometown Democracy, though, already has missed a Feb. 1 deadline for submitting enough signatures for the ballot this year, but it has plenty of time for the 2008 election.
The citizen initiative would require local governments to hold referendums on proposed changes in land use plans or when adopting new ones. Cities, counties and school boards are against that idea, saying it will grind local government to a halt.
Lawyers for the opponents, however, were unable to make that argument Monday. That's because the Supreme Court's review is limited to whether the amendment meets constitutional requirements to cover only one subject and have a clear and unambiguous ballot summary. Instead, they told the justices the amendment would affect multiple levels and agencies of government, violating the one-subject rule.
The high court last year rejected that argument but ruled against the amendment in a 4-3 opinion. The rejected sentence stated that public participation in land planning benefits conservation, natural resources protection and the quality of life.
The majority called that "emotional rhetoric" and noted land use includes more than those three factors such as traffic, utilities, housing and parks.
Hometown Democracy lawyer Ross Burnaman told the justices the offending sentence has been removed and argued for approval as the justices previously found nothing else wrong with the amendment.
Florida League of Cities lawyer Rebecca O'Hara told the justices the proposal now would affect multiple government agencies, due to a new law requiring plans to factor in classrooms and schools needed for future growth before that development occurs.
"How does that interfere substantially with another branch of government?" asked Chief Justice Barbara Pariente. "I'm just not seeing it."
O'Hara said voter rejection of city and county plans would affect the ability of school boards and the Legislature to provide new schools where they are needed and to comply with the Florida Constitution's class-size limits.
Burnaman argued the constitution doesn't consider school boards to be local governments. He also said the Supreme Court already has determined class size can be met by methods other than building new schools and the amendment would not affect existing school property.
Hometown Democracy is challenging the Feb. 1 petition deadline in a separate case set for a trial court hearing April 24 in Tallahassee. Even if it wins, the group probably couldn't gather enough signatures to get on the ballot this year, Burnaman acknowledged.
It has collected only 69,317 verified signatures, slightly more than 10 percent of the 611,009 needed to get on the ballot.
