Okay, I know I’m going to catch some flack for this one, but I’m stating this as honestly and openly as I can. I’m not sure where I stand on Amendment 4. I know I’m supposed to support it as a leftist, but I just don’t know.
And it isn’t for the reason that the right opposes it. The idea that it is a job-killer strikes me as nonsense. The right argues that any regulation or intervention by government into the economy is going to kill jobs. They are almost never accurate when they make the claim. I don’t see how that would apply here, either. The idea that people would consciously vote, if this passed, to eliminate jobs makes little sense and seems highly unlikely.
No, my problem with Florida Hometown Democracy is that I can’t figure out the mechanism for how it will properly work the way its supporters claim it will. To me, it reminds me of the plan that the Underpants Gnomes came up with on South Park.
As you can see, it’s a three-part plan:
1. Collect underpants
2. ??
3. Profit
From what I can tell, that isn’t drastically different than the FHD plan, which seems to look like this:
1. Pass FHD
2. ??
3. Citizen control over development
That’s being a big unfair, I’ll admit. Step 2 isn’t completely unknown. The idea is that citizens will vote on any changes to local comprehensive plans. My concern here is that how do we know that citizens will vote the right way when the time comes?
I’m not just talking off the top of my head, either. I had one of the creators of the amendment, Ross Burnaman, on the radio show and asked him to explain the plan a little better. His response didn’t satisfy me. Listen for yourself.
The root of the problem comes out of my political science training. There is a mountain of evidence in the field of political science and public opinion polling that tells us that only a small percentage of the population takes the time to understand what they are voting for in elections. The numbers aren’t much higher than 10 percent. And this isn’t to say that people CAN’T figure things out, it’s that they DON’T. People’s understanding of most candidates in most elections is very superficial and often based on unimportant things (who you’d rather have a beer with). People tend to decide which person they are going to vote on based on party identification or name recognition or their perception — often incorrect — of what someone’s values are. People’s image of a candidate is often much more important than actual facts about a candidate. Like the idea that some people are suggesting that Barack Obama has betrayed us because he isn’t ending the war in Iraq soon enough, despite the fact that he’s actually doing exactly what he said he was going to do on the issue. And when people vote on issues, which is rare, the process is even more problematic because they don’t tend to take the time to understand the issue and quite frequently will vote against their own personal interests — irrational behavior by any standard — while thinking they are voting for their own interests.
Now, apply that process to this issue. What we’re talking about here is people voting on changes to local comprehensive plans. I have a master’s degree in political science and am well-read in politics and related fields. But if I were to take a look at a comprehensive plan or a proposed change to one, chances are pretty good I wouldn’t understand it. My education level is higher than the overwhelming majority of the population. My political knowledge is even higher. And I would struggle with this. Now think about the rest of the population, who doesn’t even take the time to really understand the difference between presidential candidates, much less city council members. They aren’t going to know what they’re voting on. The bulk of the voters aren’t going to understand these votes. Again, not saying that they couldn’t understand, but that they won’t. And I’m not assuming this, I’m basing it on 60 years of public opinion and political science research.
So, if the people aren’t going to, generally speaking, understand what they are voting for, how are they going to determine which way to vote? First off, many of them simply won’t vote. They’ll skip that spot on the ballot. I’ll wager up front that FHD votes will be the lowest turnout items on the ballot, or close to it. Second, those who do vote will turn to surrogates to tell them which way to vote — favored politicians or interest groups. That’s fine, it’s a key way that many votes are determined. But many people who are more casually involved in politics won’t have those surrogates or, if those surrogates conflict, they won’t know which way to go.
Finally, and here’s my big problem with FHD, there will be campaigns — particularly advertising campaigns — designed to tell the voters which way to go. We’ll see tons of money poured into these votes and those campaigns will probably lead to convincing the swing voters which way to go. And which side has the most money in this situation to purchase the best ad campaigns and public outreach efforts? That’s right, the bad guys do. If developers can just buy these elections through traditional campaigning methods, then you could, in theory, make it easier for them to get the changes they want to comprehensive plans.
Alternately, you could see a situation where the public adopts a generalized default position on such votes. We’ve seen this on other issues. For instance, the majority of the public votes against any kind of tax increase in most situations (or for any kind of tax cut). You can get a tax increase passed, but it’s very difficult. And this causes huge problems in terms of keeping government effective at doing its job. It’s one of the roots of the problems Florida’s government has faced in recent years. If the public adopted a default position on this issue, it could be quite damaging in either direction. If it’s always “yes” to the changes, then we’ve exacerbated the problems we now face. If it’s always “no,” then you could see the types of limitations on growth that can damage communities. Obviously, we need a balance with this type of stuff, even if the balance should lean a little more towards the “no” position than the “yes.” How does FHD help us achieve that balance?
This is not to say that I’m against FHD. Like I said, I’m undecided. If the supporters can come up with a clear plan on how they will go about winning the battles after the passage of the amendment, then I’m inclined to vote for it. Obviously, we have a problem now with developers having too much influence in commissions and having an easy path to changing comprehensive plans in ways that harm the community. Something has to be done. I just haven’t been convinced yet that FHD is the best approach.
I’m Kenneth Quinnell and I approve this message.
Read more on Florida politics at the Florida Progressive Coalition blog (http://flaprogressives.org) and the Florida Progressive Coalition Wiki (http://quinnell.us/sspb/wiki/).
I think that one, you underestimate the clarity of the people being able to see dumb things without a planning degree. Last year the City of DeBary wanted to approve a marina in the middle of the Wekiva Aquagtic Preserve, both a dumb idea and an illegal on. It didn’t take 3 post graduate degrees to figure that one out.
Wal-Mart wants to put a regions distribution center in a tiny little town with a bunch of 2 lane, over used already, roads and run thousands of trucks a day through town. Dumb idea and even Volusia County decided to sue its neighbor to the north for approving this dumb idea.
This is not rocket science from the perspective of knowing dumb from OK. In all probabilty, what will happen is that HTD will knock down a few developments and then the developers will figure out what “smart growth” really means, and start building more senisible developments that will pass the smell test.
Quinell is making it more complicated than it is. Questions for the public: 14-story high rises on Amelia Island, yes or no? Build 65,000 homes on 65,000 acres of Nassau County agriculture land instead of the 3500 currently allowed? Build 160 million-dollar homes on environmentally sensitive Crane Island instead of 41 currently allowed? Put a 300-unit apartment complex in the middle of a community of one-family homes? How much ad money will developers have to spend to get the public to approve these?
I’m not estimating anything, I’m basing it on what people have actually done in the past. Both Robert and Eric are hoping that all of the cases that come up will be obvious, but what if they aren’t? What’s the plan for a change that is more complicated than one of the examples you offer? I never said that all votes will be too complicated to figure out. They don’t have to be for this to be a bad idea. Theoretically, one vote is all it takes if what they propose is bad enough. And clearly, the developers will spend as much money as they need to and if you don’t think they will or that they won’t lie and mislead the public as to the real nature of what they are doing, then you haven’t been paying attention.
You may be right and I might be overestimating how complicated all this stuff is. But what if I’m right? Then what?
The question isn’t what if you’re aright; the question is what if you don’t understand the process well enough to even write such a blog posting? You are influencing tens or twenty (I know, cheap shot) people with perhaps not enough understanding of the process. Your Masters in PoliSci doesn’t necessarily qualify you to write about such an important issue without getting a good background on it from multiple sources.
I suggest a 3-way phone conversation with myself and Robert Weintraub. I believe that together on that call we can allay your concerns on A4. If we convince you that your blog posting was in error; would you write one against yourself? A challenge from the uneducated masses; something you can’t turn down.
I look forward to your email so that we can set up the call.
KQ raises many valid points on the domination of complex policy elections by monied interests. I also think the public would usually reject egregious over development plans. NIMBY has a lot going for it. But not always. I’ll go with Hometown Democracy as an imperfect solution. At least it can stop some overdevelopment, or strengthen anti-overdevelopment pressure. Does KQ have an alternative, more effective way to stop over-development?
P.S., correction: Obama “promised”nothing except weasel words on Iraq. He “promised” to withdraw one to two brigades a month over 16 months, unless his generals differed. A brigade averages 5,000 troops.He has stretched the 16 months to 19 and has withdrawn 23,000, with no further withdrawals scheduled until at least March, after the elections, which may be postponed, and the seating of the new government. So in his first 12 months, he lead people to believe, he would pull a minimum of 60,000 troops and a maximum of 120,000. He’s pulled 23,000. If the elections do not go well, with Afghanistan not a good precedent, the delay will continue. Projecting to 12 months, Obama is stuck in Iraq, way behind perception he deliberately created.
I think I understand it just fine. Like I mentioned (and linked to), I interviewed Ross Burnaman and asked him the questions directly. I’ve also had numerous exchanges with Lesley Blackner. I feel I understand the amendment and how it will work. My masters degree in political science, additionally, does give me a very good understanding of the electoral process, public opinion and voting behavior. Supporters of Amendment 4 would go a long way towards building their case if they’d stop insulting people who have legitimate questions and expertise and actually back their arguments up with evidence. Personally, I’m agnostic on the amendment, I’ve yet to decide how I’m voting on it. If you or other supporters want to write something addressing my concerns, I’ll publish it, but it isn’t me you need to convince, so I doubt a phone call would be useful.