The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

Florida Growth Management Citizens' Initative

SC08-318 | SC08-492

>> PLEASE RISE.
HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE.
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS
NOW IN SESSION.
ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA,
DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION, AND
YOU SHALL BE HEARD.
GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES,
THIS GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA,
AND THIS HONORABLE COURT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
>> GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO
THE ORAL ARGUMENT SESSION FOR
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
FIRST CASE ON OUR AGENDA IS
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA.
>> LEWIS HUBENER ON BEHALF OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THIS CASE
IS HERE ON THE REQUEST OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL --
>> COULD YOU SPEAK UP SOME,
PLEASE?
>> THIS CASE HERE IS AT THE
REQUEST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION.
STEPHEN GRIMES WILL BE ARGUING
ON BEHALF OF THE SPONSOR OF THE
AMENDMENT, AND ROSS BURNAMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE OPPONENT.
THANK YOU.
>> MR.^GRIMES?
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY
NAME IS STEPHEN GRIMES.
I REPRESENT THE SPONSOR OF THE
SMARTER GROWTH AMENDMENT.
THE OPPONENT DOESN'T EVEN
CONTEND THAT THIS DOESN'T HAVE
MORE THAN A SINGLE SUBJECT.
THE, THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE
ARGUMENT THAT THE OPPONENT
MAKES TO THE INITIATIVE ITSELF
IS THAT HE CONTENDS THAT WE
SHOULD'VE SAID THAT WE WERE
AMENDING THE PRIVACY PROVISION
OF THE --
>> WELL, LET ME ASK YOU BEFORE,
YOU --
>> OKAY.
>> -- GO AWAY FROM SINGLE
SUBJECT HERE.
IS THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT BASICALLY,
AND IS THERE ALREADY IN PLACE A
PETITION PROCESS FOR THESE
TYPES OF REFERENDUMS IF THEY
ARE GOING TO GO TO A LOCAL
REFERENDUM, IS THERE ANY
PROCEDURE ALREADY IN PLACE TO
HAVE LOCAL REFERENDUMS?
I MEAN NOT JUST FOR GROWTH
MANAGEMENT BUT ANY LOCAL
REFERENDUM?
>> I'M NOT EVEN SURE I KNOW THE
ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
>> WELL, I WAS ASKING THAT
QUESTION BECAUSE IF THERE'S
ALREADY A, A PROCEDURE IN
PLACE, I'M WONDERING, ARE
PEOPLE ON NOTICE THAT THAT KIND
OF PROCEDURE WOULD CHANGE WITH
THIS KIND OF AMENDMENT.
BECAUSE THIS AMENDMENT PUTS
LIMITATIONS ON HOW YOU GET --
WHERE YOU GET THE SIGNATURES.
IT PUTS LIMITATIONS ON THE TIME
FOR GATHERING SIGNATURES, AND
IF THERE -- IF THOSE
PROCEDURES -- PROVISIONS ARE
NOT APPLICABLE IN A REGULAR
REFERENDUM, WOULDN'T THE PUBLIC
NEED TO BE ON NOTICE OF THESE
KINDS OF CHANGES?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF, OF, OF
ANY, ANY ABILITY TO, TO
CHALLENGE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED --
>> BUT I'M NOT NECESSARILY
TALKING ABOUT A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BUT ANY KIND OF LOCAL
REFERENDUM.
IS, IS THERE ANY PROCEDURE IN
PLACE?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT, BUT
THIS IS JUST, THIS IS JUST
SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN DO IF
THEY WANT TO DO.
IF THERE WAS SUCH A ONE, THIS
WOULDN'T TAKE ITS PLACE.
IF THERE WAS SOME SORT OF A, A
REFERENDUM PROCEDURE ON OTHER
MATTERS.
>> WELL, YOU ARE SAYING, I
GUESS WHAT JUSTICE QUINCE WAS
ASKING, I MIGHT JUST NEED A
QUICK FOLLOW-UP HERE, IF THAT
CITIZENS NOW, THEY CAN PETITION
FOR RE-DRESS OF A GRIEVANCE,
CAN THEY -- WHAT THEY CAN --
THEY CANNOT OR CAN THEY
PETITION TO CHANGE A
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN?
WITHIN THE LAW NOW?
IN OTHER WORDS IS THIS GIVING
THEM SOMETHING MORE THAN THEY
HAVE OR WAS JUSTICE QUINCE IS
SAYING IS THEY ARE TAKING AWAY
SOMETHING.
>> NO, IT'S GIVING THEM
SOMETHING MORE THAN THEY HAVE.
>> BUT WHAT IT'S ALSO DOING,
AND MAYBE THIS IS JUST, I'M
WORRYING AHEAD OF TIME, IF THIS
GOES ON THE BALLOT AT THE SAME
TIME AS HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY,
AREN'T THE VOTERS GOING TO BE
COMPLETELY CONFUSED?
I MEAN, THIS MEASURE REALLY AS
I UNDERSTAND IT, I MEAN, IS TO
COUNTER THE MANDATORY PROCESS
THAT'S SET FORTH IN THAT POSED
HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY, AND SO
WHAT, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE
EFFECT OF THIS BOTH GOING ON
THE AMENDMENT -- THE BALLOT AT
THE SAME TIME?
>> OF COURSE IT'S A MUCH LESS
DRASTIC METHOD OF --
>> BUT HOW, BUT IF THEY BOTH
PASS?
>> WELL, IT'S OUR BELIEF THAT
THE PUBLICITY SURROUNDING THIS
WILL BE SUCH THAT THE PEOPLE
WILL EITHER VOTE FOR ONE AND
VOTE AGAINST THE OTHER, AND,
AND IT'S, THE PUBLICITY IS
GOING TO FLUSH ALL THIS OUT
ONE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A
REFERENDUM EVERY TIME YOU
CHANGE A PLAN, THEN YOU VOTE
FOR THAT ONE.
AND VOTE AGAINST THIS OR YOU
COULD, YOU COULD VOTE FOR BOTH,
AND IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN, OF
COURSE THAT WOULD THEN HAVE TO
BE IRONED OUT LATER, PROBABLY
COME BACK TO THIS COURT I GUESS
TO SEE WHAT WOULD BE.
I THINK IT WOULD -- IT COULD BE
THAT YOU'D HAVE BOTH OPTIONS.
>> THE PROBLEM, THOUGH, REALLY
THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE
CONFRONTED EXACTLY THIS PROBLEM
IS THAT YOU'VE GOT TWO
COMPETING INITIATIVES, NEITHER
ONE OF WHICH HAS A SIGNATURE.
IF THEY GET THE SIGNATURE.
>> WELL, THEY HAVE THE
SIGNATURES, WELL, NO, EXCUSE
ME, THEY DON'T.
YOU'RE RIGHT.
THEY DON'T.
>> AND ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN
THROUGH THIS COURT.
BUT THERE'S, THERE'S STILL A, A
CASE PENDING IN THIS COURT ON
THAT ONE.
THEN YOU HAVE GOT THIS ONE, BUT
IF THEY, IF THE HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY ONE PASSES, THEN
YOU'VE GOT A SITUATIONING AS TO
WHETHER THE SUMMARY HERE IN
THIS ONE OMITS THE FACT THAT
YOU'VE GOT TO GO DOWN TO A
GOVERNMENTAL OFFICE TO SIGN THE
PETITION BECAUSE THE HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY DOESN'T HAVE THAT
PROVISION.
IF IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION.
IF IT'S NOT IN THE
CONSTITUTION, YET SO WE'RE JUST
KIND OF FLUMMOXED HERE BECAUSE
WE'VE GOT TWO COMPETING THINGS
GOING ON, AND IT'S KIND OF HARD
TO RESOLVE.
>> WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
IF, IF BOTH OF THESE WERE TO
PASS, THEN THE PUBLIC WOULD
HAVE BOTH OPTIONS.
AND THE PUBLIC COULD --
>> BOTH OPTION IS YOU CAN PUT
IT ON THE --
>> YOU CAN EITHER HAVE ONE OF
THESE TO, TO, TO PUT OURS, FOR
REFERENDUM OR YOU CAN GO
THROUGH THE PROCEDURE THAT THE
OTHER, THE HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY.
I SUPPOSE IF YOU WANTED A
REFERENDUM, EVERYBODY WOULD GO
WITH THE HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE EASIER.
>> BECAUSE, REALLY, I UNDERSTAND
THE HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY, ALL OF
THEM WOULD HAVE TO GO --
>> YEAH.
>> FOR REFERENDUM.
>> WELL, THEN THERE WOULDN'T --
>> BUT THIS ONE LIMITS THE
NUMBER THAT WOULD GO ON
REFERENDUM.
ISN'T THAT THE CASE?
>> IT WOULD NOT, IT ONLY
TDOESANT LIMIT THEM.
IT DOESN'T TAKE -- IT DOESN'T
LIMIT THEM.
IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE
HOMETOWNTOWN DEMOCRACY.
IT WOULD GIVE -- IF SOMEBODY
WANTED TO USE OURS, THEY'D HAVE
TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCEDURE.
>> BUT YOU'RE REALLY -- YOUR
ATTEMPT --
>> IT SEEMS TO ME IF THE OTHER
ONE PASSES, OURS WOULD BE --
THERE WOULD BE NO PURPOSE IN
ANYBODY DOING OURS.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND
YOU'RE BEING CANDID HERE, IS
THAT THIS IS BEING OFFERED UP
WITH THE HOPE, IT'S SORT OF
LIKE ON THE -- I DON'T KNOW, IF
THEY BOTH GOT ON THE BALLOT,
YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU'RE FOR
GAY MARRIAGE OR AGAINST IT, YOU
KNOW, I MEAN, HOPEFULLY PEOPLE
AREN'T GOING TO VOTE FOR BOTH
TO SAY I'M FOR AND AGAINST IT.
SOME JOKE ABOUT THAT BUT HOME
-- I MEAN EITHER YOU'RE SAYING
THEY'VE REALLY, VOTERS NEED TO
MAKE A CHOICE BUT THE WAY IT'S
NOW FRAMED, AND THE WAY IT
WOULD END UP APPEARING ON A
BALLOT ONCE WE APPROVE THIS
BALLOT SUMMARY AND IS THAT IT
COULD REALLY RESULT IN GREAT
CONFUSION TO THE VOTER.
>> IF, IF THE HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY AMENDMENT PASSES, I
DON'T THINK IT WOULD MAKE ANY
DIFFERENCE WHETHER OURS PASSED
OR NOT.
BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE
REFERENDUM --
>> BUT YOU'RE NOT SAYING IT
WOULD NULLIFY --
>> NO, NO,.
>> BUT IF YOU, IF THE HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY PASSED AND THIS ONE
ON THE -- AND THIS WENT ON THE
BALLOT, WOULDN'T YOU SAY THAT
YOUR ATTEMPT WOULD BE TO LIMIT
THAT AMENDMENT BY PUTTING
SOMETHING ON THAT HAS A MUCH
MORE ONEROUS REQUIREMENT, WHICH
IS 10% OF THE, OF THE
ELECTORATE HAVING TO, YOU KNOW,
SIGN AND DO ALL THE THINGS THAT
JUSTICE WELLS IS TALKING ABOUT?
>> WELL, WE WOULD ARGUE
POLITICALLY IF THERAPY THEY'RE
BOTH ON THE BALLOT THEN YOU
OUGHT TO VOTE AGAINST THE OTHER
ONE BECAUSE INSTEAD OF HAVING
AN AMENDMENT -- SOMEBODY TOLD
ME THERE'S 11,000 CHANGES TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AROUND THE
STATE EVERY YEAR.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A
REFERENDUM ON EVERY ONE OF
THEM, VOTE FOR THAT ONE BUT,
BUT DON'T -- OUR EFFORT WOULD
BE TO GET THEM TO VOTE AGAINST
THAT ONE.
AND TAKE OURS WHERE YOU HAVE IT
AN OPPORTUNITY BUT ALL BE IT A
LIMITED OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A
REFERENDUM.
>> THE QUESTION OF SHOULDN'T,
SHOULDN'T A TITLE HERE SAY THAT
THERE'S A LIMITED OPPORTUNITY?
IT SAYS FLORIDA GROWTH
MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE GIVING
CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE
LOCAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANS.
NOWHERE IN THAT TITLE DOES IT
SAY, I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THE TITLE OUGHT TO SAY
LIMITED RIGHT TO DECIDE LOCAL
PLAN.
>> AT THE TIME IT WOULD BE MORE
THAN A RIGHT THAN THEY HAVE AT
ALL.
THE FACT THAT IT SAYS THAT IT
REQUIRES, PROVIDES DEFINITION
AND PETITION REQUIREMENTS, AND
THERE, A NUMBER OF CASES THAT
THIS PETITION REQUIREMENTS,
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CASES,
AND THAT THE COURT HAS APPROVED
THAT WAS ALLOWED THAT SORT OF
THING TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS
THAT WOULD FLESH OUT THE
AMENDMENT AND WHEN YOU GET
RIGHT DOWN TO TTHOSE THINGS ARE
NOT ALL THAT UNUSUAL.
ABSENTEE VOTING THIS YEAR,
WHERE YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE,
THE SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE, WAY
MORE THAN 10% OF THE PEOPLE
WERE, WERE INVOLVED IN THAT
THIS YEAR.
YOU GOT THE, YOU GOT TO HAVE A
TIME LIMIT OF SOMETHING BECAUSE
THE, THESE AMENDMENTS REQUIRE
PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE A LOT OF
MONEY INVESTED IN CERTAIN
AMENDMENTS.
>> BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF,
IF YOU REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS,
MAKING THEM GO TO THE PROPERTY
APPRAISERS OFFICE OR THE TAX
ASSESSMENT -- WHICH OFFICE IS
IT?
THE --
>> SUPERVISORS.
>> SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS'
OFFICE TO SIGN THE EPETITION AS
OPPOSED TO GENERALLY WHEN THERE
ARE PETITION DRIVES PEOPLE GO
AROUND TO VARIOUS PLACES AND
GET SIGNATURES, SO I THINK
THAT'S A REAL DIFFERENCE IN
WHAT'S NORMALLY THOUGHT OF IN A
PETITION DRIVE THAN WHAT THIS
AMENDMENT IS REQUIRING.
>> IT ISN'T INTENDED TO BE --
IT'S ONLY INTENDED TO WHERE
YOU'D HAVE A, A, A PETITION
DRIVE WHERE IT WAS A VERY
CONTROVERSIAL CHANGE THAT'S
BEING OFFERED.
BUT RIGHT NOW THERE'S NONE AT
ALL.
AND, AND, AND THE VOTERS WOULD
BE GETTING SOMETHING MORE THAN
THEY HAVE.
IT WOULDN'T BE AS MUCH AS IF
THEY VOTE FOR THE HOMETOWN
AMENDMENT, AND I'M CONVINCED
THAT IF THE HOMETOWN AMENDMENT
PASSED, IT WOULDN'T MATTER
WHETHER OURS PASSED OR NOT.
BECAUSE NOBODY WOULD USE IT.
THERE WOULD BE NO PURPOSE OF
IT.
>> WELL, I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY
SEEING HOW THE HOMETOWN
AMENDMENT HAS IRRELEVANCY TO
WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROPOSED
AMENDMENT MEETS OUR, THE TWO
TESTS, YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAVE.
THAT, THAT AMENDMENT IS NOT IN
THE CONSTITUTION NOW, IS IT?
>> NO, SIR.
>> -- THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HAD
COMPETING GROUPS, BUT IS THERE
AN ISSUE, THOUGH, WITH
REFERENCE TO ANY POTENTIAL
DECEPTION AS TO THIS BEING A
REAL BIG DEAL GIFT TO THE
VOTING PUBLIC WHEN ORDINARILY
THEY'RE USED TO, AS THE CHIEF
JUSTICE ENEMY, BEING ABLE TO
SIGN PETITIONS, ALL KINDS OF
PLACES.
AND, AND THIS ONE ACTS LIKE
THEY'RE GETTING THAT PETITION
AUTHORITY BUT IT'S RESTRICTING
THEM TO HAVING TO GO TO THE
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, SO
IT'S REALLY MAKING IT MORE
DIFFICULT THAN WHAT WE PERCEIVE
IS ORDINARY PETITION DRIVE.
IS IT NOT?
>> I AGREE THAT THIS STANDS
ALONE.
I, I, I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.
>> AND ISN'T IT MAKING IT MORE
DIFFICULT THAN THE ORDINARY
PETITION DRIVES, FOR INSTANCE,
THE FIFTH CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT.
>> YES, SIR, IT DOES.
>> IT DOESN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
THAT?
>> BUT, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO
FOR --, THE, THE PEOPLE WOULD
BE BETTER OFF EVEN THOUGH IT'S,
IT'S A LIMITED AMOUNT.
THEY, THEY GOT NOTHING NOW.
IF THEY VOTE FOR IT, THEY, THEN
THEY HAVE A --
>> EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE MORE
DIFFICULT, THEY STILL ARE
GETTING SOMETHING THAT THEY
DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE?
>> YES, SIR, AND IT STANDS ALL
BY ITSELF.
AND UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE OF
ALL OF THE NUMBER OF OTHER
CASES WE'VE HAD BEFORE THE
COURT, YOU, YOU DON'T PUT ALL,
YOU CAN'T PUT ALL THOSE DETAILS
IN THE SUMMARY AND YOU -- BUT
YOU MAKE -- AND HERE'S A
SPECIFIC REFERENCE.
PETITION REQUIREMENTS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT AND AS I'M -- WHAT I'M
SAYING IS, SURE IT'S, IT'S MORE
DIFFICULT.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
AND IF IT'S A CONTROVERSIAL
AMENDMENT, THEN THE PEOPLE WILL
RISE UP AND DO IT, AND THAT'S
ALL, THAT'S ALL WE INTEND THE
IT WOULD BE OFFERING AND IT'S
MORE THAN THEY HAVE NOW.
I'LL RESERVE THE REST, WHATEVER
TIME I HAVE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
MR.^BURNAMAN.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE QUINCE,
MEMBERS OF THE COURT, GOOD
MORNING, I'M ROSS BURNAMAN HERE
ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY INCORPORATED.
I'D LIKE TO STARTUTE BY
RESPONDING TO YOUR INITIAL --
START OUT BY RESPONDING TO YOUR
INITIAL INQUIRY, CHIEF JUSTICE
QUINCE, ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THERE'S AN EXISTING PROCESS IN
FLORIDA FOR CITIZENS TO RECALL
ORDINANCES GENERALLY OR TO
FORCE RECONSIDERATION, AND THAT
IN SOME CHARTER COUNTIES AND
CITIES, THERE ARE PROVISIONS
MADE IN THE LOCAL CHARTER FOR
CITIZENS TO PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ANY
ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING OR
ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE LAND
USE PLAN.
THERE IS A STATUTE 1633167 THAT
LIMITS THE ABILITY OF A LOCAL
REFERENDUM TO PLAN AMENDMENTS
WHERE THEY HAVE FIVE PARCELS OR
MORE AFFECTED.
>> DID THOSE COUNTIES THAT HAVE
THOSE KINDS OF PROCEDURES, IS
THERE A PETITION METHOD SIMILAR
TO WHAT'S IN THIS AMENDMENT
THAT TELLS YOU WHERE YOU CAN
SIGN PETITIONS, HOW LONG YOU
HAVE, IN WHICH TO GET THE
SIGNATURES?
>> THE CHARTERS DO DIFFER, BUT
I'M NOT AWARE OF A SINGLE
CHARTER THAT REQUIRES THAT THE
PETITION BE SIGNED AT THE
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE.
IN THE APPENDIX TO OUR INITIAL
BRIEF, WE INCLUDED AN EXCERPT
FROM THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF
ST. PETE BEACH.
ST. PETE BEACH IS SIMILAR TO
SOME OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
INSOFAR AS THERE IS A GENERAL
PROVISION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ALL ORDINANCES, BUT ST. PETE
BEACH IS UNIQUE IN INSOFAR AS
EVERY SINGLE ORDINANCE AMENDING
OR ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE PLAN MUST BOW TO A
REFERENDUM.
>> BUT WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT
THERE ISN'T ANYTHING IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF FLORIDA
PRESENTLY THAT HAS TO DO WITH
REFERENDUMS IN RESPECT TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS?
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU,
JUSTICE WELLS.
THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION.
THERE IS A RIGHT TO PETITION
THE GOVERNMENT FOR SPECIFIC
RE-DRESS IN ARTICAL 1 I BELIEVE
SECTION 5.
NOW GOING TO THE NEXT POINT, --
>> BUT THAT'S SORT OF IMPORTANT
TO ME BECAUSE THE FIRST ISSUE,
AND AGAIN, I BROUGHT UP THE
HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY NOT
MR.^GRIMES SO ME I WAS SEEING
THE CONFLICT AND I'M SURE YOU
AGREE THAT IF THEY BOTH PASS WE
ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME ISSUES
BUT WHAT -- LET'S TAKE YOUR
AMENDMENT ASIDE, HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY.
THIS AMENDMENT, EVEN WITH ALL
OF ITS REQUIREMENTS WILL GIVE
CITIZENS OR VOTERS OF A
PARTICULAR AREA THE POTENTIAL
FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE -- ANY
AMENDMENT THAT THEY THINK IS
SIGNIFICANT TO LOCAL LAND USE
PLANS.
IF THEY DON'T HAVE NOW.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT OR
DISAGREE BECAUSE TO ME THAT'S
IMPORTANT IN DECIDING WHETHER
THIS IS MISLEADING OR NOT?
>>> JUSTICE PARIENTE IT WOULD
CREATE A LIMITED OPPORTUNITY
FOR CITIZENS TO HAVE A
REFERENDUM ON A LOCAL PLAN OR
PLAN AMENDMENT.
>> SO THEN THE ANSWER'S YES?
>> THE ANSWER --
>> IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HAD
LIKE FOR YOUR GROUP, YOU SAID,
WELL, IF WE CAN'T GET THE WHOLE
THING, THIS IS AT LEAST BETTER
THAN NOTHING.
>> WELL, LET ME AT A FOOTNOTE
TO THAT, TO TAKE OFF ON WHAT I
WAS JUST SPEAKING ABOUT IN
RESPONSE TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S
INITIAL CONCERN.
IN THOSE COUNTIES OR CITIES
THAT HAVE A CHARTER, AND WHERE
THE CHARTER PRESENTLY PROVIDES
FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF ANY
ORDINANCE UPON A PETITION
PROCEDURE, THERE ALREADY EXISTS
AN OPPORTUNITY.
NOW THAT HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY
THE STATUTE THAT I CITED
1633167 ABOUT WHETHER IT
AFFECTS FIVE OR FEW PARCELS BUT
IN THE REMAINDER OF COUNTIES
AND CITIESTHOSIS THAT DON'T
HAVE A CHARTER AND OPERATE
UNDER HOME RULE THEN THERE
WOULD BE A LIMITED OPPORTUNITY
CREATEDDINATE THE SMARTER
GROWTH PROPOSAL.
>> BUT THERE CAN'T BE A
REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE WERECT
SOME TO EVERY PAGE WITH RESPECT
TO EVERY POSSIBLE IMPACT THAT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD
HAVE ON LOCAL ORDINANCES AND
LOCAL --
[INAUDIBLE]
IS THERE LAW, IS THERE
PRECEDENT FOR SAYING THAT
NOTICE IS GIVEN ABOUT THAT SORT
OF --.
>> WELL, JUSTICE CANADY, THERE
IS A GENERAL TRUTH IN PACKAGING
OR FAIRNESS REQUIREMENT FOR THE
BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY, AND --
>> IT WOULD BE THE CASE THAT
DEPENDING ON WHAT THE LOCAL
CHARTER SAID, THAT THE IMPACT
IN ONE PLACE COULD BE DIFFERENT
THAN THE IMPACT IN ANOTHER
PLACE.
SO YOU WOULD GET INTO A KIND OF
A VERY COMPLEX THING VERY
ANTITHETICAL --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO
EVERY DETAIL AND RAMIFICATION
OF THE PROPOSAL IN THE BALLOT
TITLE AND SUMMARY BUT HERE THE
PROPOSAL IS CLEARLY AND
CONCLUSIVELY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE
OF MISLEADING THINGS.
I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE
BRIEF THAT WAS FILED ON BEHALF
OF THE SPONSOR.
SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO
THE STATEMENT AND PURPOSE
CLAUSE AND IT SAYS THAT IT'S
INTENDED TO PREEMPT OR
SUPERSEDE RECENT PROPOSALS TO
SUBJECT ALL COMPREHENSIVE LAND
USE PLANS AND AMENDMENTS TO
VOTES SO THAT'S AN IMPLICIT
REFERENCE TO FLORIDA HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY, WHICH HAS ALREADY
BEEN IMPROVED.
AND IN TERMS OF BALLOT
ELIGIBILITY, WE'RE OVER 611.
BUT FOR THE REVOCATIONS WHICH
ARE SUBJECT TO A PENDING CASE
BEFORE THIS COURT, AND WE,
WE'RE, I THINK SHORT ONE
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT SO WE'RE
LIKELY TO BE ON THE 2010
BALLOT.
NOW FOR THE SMARTER GROWTH
AMENDMENT IS ON THE BALLOT
AT THE SAME TIME, THE VOTER IS
NOT GOING TO BE INFORMED THAT
IF HE OR SHE VOTES FOR BOTH,
THAT IN FACT THIS WHEREAS
LANGUAGE IS GOING --
>> IS THAT A REQUIREMENT?
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT'S WHERE I
STARTED OUT.
I DON'T KNOW ANY CASES THAT
WOULD SAY, I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
YOUR BALLOT SHOULD SAY
SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
I MEAN WHY SHOULD IT BE THEM
JUST BECAUSE THEIR SECOND JUST
BECAUSE YOURS HASN'T PASSED
YET?
I MEAN WHAT CASE LAW DO YOU
HAVE FOR THAT IDEA THAT THEY
HAVE TO ANTICIPATE WHETHER OR
NOT YOUR AMENDMENT WILL PASS OR
NOT.
>> WELL, THE CASE LAW, I RELY
ON IS THE GENERAL TRUTH IN
PACKAGING REQUIREMENT AND SAY
ARMSTRONG v. HARRISON,
WHATEVER, WE DON'T HAVE A
PROVISION IN OUR PROPOSAL THAT
IT SUPERSEDE OR PREEMPT ANY
OTHER PROPOSAL.
WE'RE NOT THE ONES THAT, THAT
OFFERED THAT LANGUAGE.
WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS THEY'VE
PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THEIR
WHEREAS CLAUSE AND IF YOU LOOK
AT THEIR REPLY BRIEF AND THEY
ARE SAYING WELL AS I UNDERSTAND
THE WHEREAS CLAUSE, IT IS NOT
SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THIS COURT
AND THEY'RE CITE AGFOOTNOTE 8
IN THE SECONDHAND SMOKE CASE.
IN THE SECONDHAND SMOKE CASE AS
I READ IT, FOOTNOTE 8 DOES NOT
STAND FOR THAT PROPOSITION SO I
WOULD JUST DIRECT THE COURT
TO --
>> IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION
OF WHETHER MEASURES ARE ADOPTED
CONTEMPORANEOUS.
IF THEIR ARE ADOPTED BY THE
SAME PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME --
THAT'S A COMPLICATED QUESTION
AND THE IMPACT THAT THAT
PURPOSE LANGUAGE WOULD HAVE ON
IT MIGHT BE, I MEAN I THINK YOU
WOULD PROBABLY CONCEDE.
THAT'S NOT BEFORE THIS COURT
TODAY.
BUT JUST THE NOTION THAT, THAT
THE PROPONENTS OF THIS
AMENDMENTS SHOULD, HAVE SOME
OBLIGATION TO INVOLVE IN THE
DOUBLE SPECULATION THAT YOUR
AMENDMENT'S GOING TO GET ON THE
BALLOT AND THEN IT'S GOING TO
GET APPROVED AND GIVE NOTICE
ABOUT THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE
SEEMS TO BE A STRETCH.
SUMMARIES SHOULD NOT INVOLVE
SPECULATION.
THAT SEEMS TO BE AGAIN CONTRARY
TO THE IDEA OF KIND OF
INFORMING THE PEOPLE IN A CLEAR
COMP REHENSIVE WAY.
YOU GET INTO SPECULATION ABOUT
THINGS THAT MIGHT HAPPEN,
YOU'RE GETTING IT SEEMS TO ME
FAR AFIELD FROM WHAT THE
SUMMARY SHOULD BE ABOUT.
>> WELL, JUSTICE CANADY, WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT, THE LANGUAGE
THAT I WAS READING FROM ABOUT
THIS PREEMPT OR SUPERSEDE
LANGUAGE IS CAPTIONED UNDER
QUOTE STATEMENT AND PURPOSE IN
THE TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT AND
LET ME JUST GO TO THE CHIEF
PURPOSE BECAUSE TO ME THERE'S
THIS FATAL FLAW WITH THIS THE
FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE TEXT
OF THE AMENDMENT PRUPORTS TO
SET FORTH ITS PURPOSE
EXPLICITLY AND THAT IS TO
PROVIDE A, QUOTE, LIMITED
OPPORTUNITY.
RIGHT?
HOWEVER WHEN THE VOTER READS
THE TITLE AND SUMMARY, NOTHING
IN THE TITLE OR SUMMARY INFORMS
THE VOTER THAT THIS IS A,
QUOTE, LIMITED OPPORTUNITY
INSTEAD IT'S MISLEADING AND
DECEPTIVE.
IT CHARACTERIZES --
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.
IT'S ACTUALLY IF I'M CORRECT,
IF THIS AMENDMENT PASSED, THE
LINE THAT SAYS THIS AMENDMENT
IS INTENDED TO MODIFY EXISTING
LAW AND THEN IT SAYS AND
INTENDED TO PREEMPT OR
SUPERSEDE RECENT PROPOSALS,
WOULD ACTUALLY BE IF THE
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT?
>> NEGATIVE, JUSTICE PARIENTE.
HOWEVER --
>> OKAY SO WHAT IS IT -- IT
WOULD ONLY BE, THAT'S
SUBSECTION A, ONLY SUBSECTION B
WOULD BECOME PART OF THE
AMENDMENT?
THOOTHAT'S A TRUE STATEMENT.
THAT'S A TRUE STATEMENT BUT THE
COURT IS NEVER, THAT I'M AWARE
OF CAN FIND ITSELF TO THE
ACTUAL TEXT THAT WOULD APPEAR
IN THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO
DISCERN THE CHIEF PURPOSE.
AND HERE THE SPONSOR HAS -- IT
TELLS THE VOTER HERE'S WHAT THE
PURPOSE S. IT'S TO CREATE A
LIMITED OPPORTUNITY AND YET THE
VOTER WHO DOESN'T READ THE FULL
TEXT WOULD BE VOTING BASED ON
THE TITLE AND SUMMARY, WHICH
CHARACTERIZES THIS AS A, QUOTE,
RIGHT TO DECIDE AND ALLOWING
VOTERS, TO QUOTE, CALL FOR
VOTER APPROVAL.
AND THOSE ARE TWO QUITE
DIFFERENT THINGS AND THIS IS
COMPLETELY MISLEADING.
>> LET'S GO BACK FOR A MOMENT
TO THE STATEMENT YOU MADE
EARLIER.
YOU SAID THERE ARE SOME
COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
THAT ALREADY PROVIDE FOR A
VOTER REFERENDUM TO AMEND THESE
KIND OF LAND USE ORDINANCES?
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER?
>> I SAID JUSTICE QUINCE, I
SAID TWO THINGS, CONTAINS CITY
OF ST. PETE BEACH CHARTER THAT
ALREADY REQUIRES IN EVERY
INSTANCE VOTER REFERENDA ON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS.
>> AND SO A PART OF THE YOUR
ARGUMENT THEN IS THAT CITIZENS
SHOULD AT LEAST BE ON NOTICE
THAT THIS WOULD ELIMINATE,
CHANGE, MODIFY THOSE KINDS OF
PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN LOCAL
CHARTERS.
>> I BELIEVE THAT
THAT WOULD BE A FAIR
CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE VOTER
TO BE AWARE OF WHEN HE OR SHE
CAST HIS OR HER BALLOT.
THE.
>> BECAUSE THERE'S A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, OF
COURSE, THIS WOULD PREEMPT ANY
KIND OF LOCAL ORDINANCE,
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> WHAT IS YOUR AUTHORITY FOR
THAT PROPOSITION?
THAT IS THAT JUSTICE CANADY
ASKED YOU EARLIER, IS THERE
SOME REQUIREMENT THAT THE
PROPONENTS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT SEARCH OUT ALL OF THE
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, COUNTY
ORDINANCES, IN OTHER WORDS, ALL
OF THE LOCAL LAWS AND INFORM
THE VOTERS THAT THIS MIGHT
PREEMPT A LOCAL LAW THAT GIVES
THEM GREATER RIGHTS THAN THE
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT WAS?
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT.
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT, JUSTICE
ANSTEAD BUT HERE --
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M HAVING
TROUBLE --
>> WELL, AGAIN, HERE THE
SPONSOR HAS IN THE TEXT OF THE
AMENDMENT SET 4th, QUOTE, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ENACTED GROWTH
MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE
PLANNING LEGISLATION THESE LAWS
DO NOT PROVIDE FOR VOTERS TO
DIRECT APPROVAL FOR THE
RESULTING PLANS OR AMENDMENTS.
IN FACT, THAT'S NOT TRUE
EVERYWHERE SO THAT YOU KNOW,
THAT YOU KNOW, SO IF THE
SPONSOR WANTS TO PUT IN THE
TEXT OF A PROPOSAL, THE
STATEMENT OF WHAT THE LAW IS,
IT NEEDS TO BE ACCURATE.
FOR ONE, I MEAN, AND HERE, THE,
AGAIN, I JUST WOULD RELY UPON A
LONG LINE OF CASES.
ARMSTRONG v. HARRIS,.
>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
CONCEPT ORPHDECEPTION.
>> RIGHT.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN HAVE
DECEPTION EITHER BY OMISSION OR
COMISSION.
AND, AND HERE WE BELIEVE THAT
IT'S A, THERE ARE ERRORS OF
OMISSION.
>> WELL, LET'S JUST SAY --
WELL, THE VOTER SEES THE TITLE,
VOTER DOESN'T SEE THE SUMMARY
ON THE BALLOT.
>> THE VOTER SEES THE TITLE AND
SUMMARY.
>> OKAY SO THEY DON'T SEE THE
TEXT OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED
UNLESS THEY GO -- THEY HAVE TO
GO SOMEPLACE.
>> WELL, THEY CAN SEE THE TEXT
WHEN THEY SIGN THE PETITION IF
THEY ARE ONE OF THE PETITIONERS
OR THE TEXT IS REQUIRED TO BE
POSTED IN EACH OF THE POLLING
PLACES.
NOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S --
>> WOULD YOU AGREE -- IF THE
FIGHTAL SAID, INSTEAD OF SAYING
GIVING CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO
DECIDE LOCAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN CHANGES WAS IN KEEPING
WITH THOUGHT THAT STATE THE
PURPOSE IS, GIVING VOTERS A
LIMITED OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE OR
APPROVE PLANS OR AMENDMENTS,
WOULD YOU SAY THAT WOULD BE
MORE ACCURATE OR AT LEAST THAT
THAT WOULD NOT BE DECEPTIVE?
AND YOU -- NOW, WHETHER THE
BALLOT SUMMARY NEEDED TO
INCLUDE THIS OTHER PART ABOUT
IN SOME COUNTIES THEY ALREADY
HAVE THIS RIGHT, BUT MAYBE THEY
DON'T, I MEAN, WE, WE'RE
SPECULATING ABOUT IT.
WOULD THAT BE MORE ACCURATE,
LIMITED OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE
-- YOU KNOW, LIMITED
OPPORTUNITY VERSUS RIGHT TO
DECIDE?
>> YES, MA'AM, JUSTICE PARIENTE
IT WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE TO
USE THE PHRASE LIMITED
OPPORTUNITY ALTHOUGH RIGHT NOW
JUST BEAR IN MIND HERE THEY
HAVE ONLY USED 52 WORDS IN
THEIR SUMMARY THEY HAVE 75 SO
23 WORDS ON THE CUTTING ROOM
FLOOR SO TO SPEAK IN THE
SUMMARY WHERE IT SAYS FOR
EXAMPLE SIGN A PETITION THEY
COULD'VE SAID SIGN A PETITION
AT THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
OFFICE AND THEN IT SAYS CALLING
FOR SUCH REFERENDUM THEY
COULD'VE SAID WITHIN A 60-DAY
PERIOD AND THEY STILL WOULD'VE
BEEN THE 75-WORD BALLOT SUMMARY
LIMITATION.
THAT WOULD'VE BEEN -- AT LEAST
IT WOULD'VE CURED TWO OF THE
MATERIAL OMISSIONS.
THAT IS THAT VERY SIGNIFICANT
DETAIL THAT JUSTICE WELLS THAT
YOU ALLUDED TO, I BELIEVE, AND
THAT IS THAT YOU'VE PHYSICALLY
HAVE TO LEAVE YOUR HOUSE AND
DRIVE TO THE SUPERVISOR'S
OFFICE IN ORDER TO SIGN THIS
PETITION, AND, AND WHAT IT IS
IS THAT WE HAVE A, A GENERAL
PROPOSITION IN THESE CASES THAT
CITIZENS THAT HAVE A COMMON
UNDERSTANDING AND GENERALLY
KNOW HOW THINGS WORK, AND HERE
CITIZENS CERTAINLY KNOW THAT
WHEN THEY SIGN A PETITION FOR A
CANDIDATE OR A LOCAL CHARTER
AMENDMENT OR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THEY CAN DO IT
ANYWHERE.
AND SO HERE, THE VOTER WOULD
JUST ASSUME BASED ON THIS
BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY, OH,
I CAN SIGN THIS PETITION AND
THAT'S GREAT.
BUT IF THE VOTER WAS TOLD, OH,
WELL, YOU LIVE IN PALM BEACH
COUNTY AND YOU'VE GOT TO DRIVE,
YOU KNOW, 50 MILES TO GO SIGN
THE PETITION, I THINK THAT
VOTER WOULD WANT TO KNOW THAT
WHEN HE OR SHE PULLED THE
LEVER.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'VE
TURNED THIS PRESUMPTION OF
COMMON SENSE OF THE VOTERS ON
THEIR HEAD.
LET ME GET TO THE NEXT
ARGUMENT.
THAT IS INCONSISTANCY IN THE
BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY IN THE
TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT AND AS
NOTED IN THE HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER'S ADVISORY OPINION
WHERE THEY USE THE TERM
CITIZENS IN THE BALLOT TITLE
AND SUMMARY AND NATURAL PERSONS
IN TEXT, THAT WAS DETERMINED TO
BE FATAL TO THE ACCURACY OF THE
BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY AND
HERE IN THE TITLE THEY USE
CITIZENS, AND IN, AND IN THE
SUMMARY THEY USE FLORIDIANS,
AND ACTUALLY WHAT THEY'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS A SUBSET OF
THOSE.
THOSE ARE REGISTERED VOTERS AND
NOT JUST ANY REGISTERED VOTER
IN FLORIDA.
IT WOULD BE A REGISTERED VOTER
WHO RESIDED WITHIN THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION THAT
WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE PROPOSED
PLAN OR PLAN AMENDMENT.
>> BUT, BUT IN THE, SUMMARY IT
REFERS TO VOTER APPROVAL.
>> IT DOES REFER TO VOTER
APPROVAL BUT IT SAYS ALLOWS
FLORIDIANS TO CALL FOR.
WELL, TO CALL FOR, THE
FLORIDIANS THAT WOULD BE ABLE
TO CALL FOR THAT WOULD BE A AN
INDIVIDUAL QUOTE REGISTERED --
FOR ELECTIONS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT WHO PHYSICALLY WENT
DOWN TO THE SUPERVISOR OF
ELECTIONS OFFICE, PRESENTED
IDENTIFICATION, IDENTIFIED ALL
OF THEIR WEB SITES THAT THEY,
THAT THEY OWN OR VISIT, THAT
MIGHT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH
THIS AMENDMENT, DISCLOSE ALL
THEIR FINANCIAL INFORMATION
THAT MIGHT HAVE ANY BEARING ON
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THAT'S
NOT A FLORIDIAN.
THAT'S A FLORIDIAN WILLING TO
SACRIFICE HIS OR HER RIGHT TO
PRIVACY WHO ALSO IS A
REGISTERED VOTER OF THE
PARTICULAR LOCALITY SO THAT IS
JUST AS IN THE HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS CASE, THEY USE THESE
INCONSISTENT TERMS.
THEY COULD'VE EASILY USED AN
ACCURATE TERM INSTEAD OF
FLORIDIANS.
THIS IS, FAILS BASIC TRUTH IN
PACKAGING.
>> WELL I THINK YOU ARE MAYBE
MIXING TWO THINGS WHICH IS
WHETHER THEY NEED TO SAY,
INSTEAD OF SAYING GIVING
CITIZENS WHETHER IT WOULD BE
VOTERS BUT I'M NOT SO SURE
ABOUT THAT BUT NOW LET'S JUST
GO BACK TO THIS ISSUE OF
IMPACTING PRIVACY.
IT SEEMS TO ME IF A CITIZEN WHO
IS OR VOTER WHO IS TRYING TO
MAKE A, A CHANGE TO THE LAND
USE PLAN THAT IT IS NOT A -- TO
SAY THERE IS A RIGHT OF PRIVACY
THEY ARE VOLUNTARILY DECIDING
WE ARE GOING TO DO IT.
AND ARE YOU SAYING THAT EFFECT
OF RIGHT OF PRIVACY SHOULD BE
IN THE SUMMARY?
WHAT IS THE ISSUE WITH THE
RIGHT OF PRIVACY?
BECAUSE IT IS GIVING THEM A
RIGHT THEY DON'T HAVE
GENERALLY, AND THE TEXT OF THE
AMENDMENT DOES EXPLAIN THAT
THEY HAVE TO DO THOSE OTHER
THINGS.
ARE YOU SAYING THEY WOULD HAVE
TO STATE AND DIZ CLOSE
FINANCIAL INFORMATION IN THE
WEB SITES OR IT WOULD JUST HAVE
TO SAY IT INTERFERES WITH RIGHT
WITH PRIVACY OR EITHER OR
NEITHER.
>> WELL, AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR
QUESTION, I HAVE TO IDENTIFY
ANY, ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION WHERE THERE IS
SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT AND IT WOULD
HAVE TO ARGUE THIS IS
SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT.
>> IT IS UNDER SINGLE SUBJECT.
>> IT IS ALSO UNDER SINGLE
SUBJECT.
I SEE THAT I HAVE USED MY TIME
AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S
CONSIDERATION OF OUR ARGUMENTS
TODAY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> SAYS 626, DOES THAT MEAN I
HAVE THAT MUCH TIME.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE T.
[LAUGHTER]
>> GOOD POINT.
AS JUSTICE ANSTEAD POINTED OUT,
THIS, THIS AMENDMENT STANDS
ALONE.
THE, THE EVER --
>> CAN I ASK -- WHEN HE SAID
THAT I WAS THINKING I BROUGHT
IT UP BUT THEN I REALIZE I'D
DITANT BRING IT UP, THE
PROPONENT TO THE AMENDMENT
BROUGHT IT UP IN THE STATEMENT
AND PURPOSE WHICH SAYS THAT IT
IS INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE OR
PREEMPT RECENT PROPOSALS THAT
WOULD SUBJECT ALL COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE AMENDMENTS AND VOTES
THUS -- COMPETING INTEREST
WITHOUT OVERBURDENING VOTERS SO
I DIDN'T BRICK IT UP.
IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
I AGREE.
OF COURSE THE PREAMBLE DOES NOT
GO TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT
IT'S, AND IT'S NOT ARTFULLY
WORDED BUT THE POINT IS THAT
WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO LET
PEOPLE KNOW AT LEAST IN WHAT
THEY WERE DRIVING WAS THAT THEY
WERE OPPOSING THE HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY AMENDMENT.
THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO HIDE
THAT AND THEY WANTED PEOPLE TO
VOTE --
>> DOES THIS STATEMENT OF
PURPOSE WHEN YOU HAVE TO POST
THE FULL AMENDMENT IS THAT
POSTED ALSO WITH THE FULL
AMENDMENT?
>> POSTED, I DON'T KNOW WHERE
YOU POST --
>> I BELIEVE EITHER YOU OR YOUR
OPPONENT SAID THAT THE FULL
TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT IS POSTED
SOMEPLACE, ONLY POLLS OR
SOMETHING.
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT
BECAUSE THE PREAMBLE THERE HAVE
BEEN A LOT OF PREAMBLES ON THE
CITIZENS INITIATIVES THEY DO
NOT GO IN THE --
>> IT IS PART OF THE FULL TEXT
OF THE CONSTITUTION SO IF A
VOTER REALLY WANTS TO GO THE
EXTRA STEP AND GO BEYOND THE
BALLOT IN THE SUMMARY, THEY GO
TO THE WEB SITE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE OR WHATEVER
THE FULL TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT
OF THE PROPOSAL AMENDMENT WILL
INCLUDA. IT WON'T GO INTO THE
CONSTITUTION BUT THAT STATEMENT
THAT I JUST READ WILL BE THERE
FOR THE VOTER TO, WHO WANTS TO
GO FIND THAT.
>> RIGHT.
>> TO SEE THAT.
>> RIGHT.
WELL, THE BUOYANT OF THAT IS,
AS -- POINT OF THAT AS I SAY IT
WAS NOT ARTFULLY WORDED IT WAS
TO GIVE A MUCH LESS EGREGIOUS
WAY OF, OF, OF ALLOWING PEOPLE
TO MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT WOULD NOT PREEMPT.
LOCAL -- THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT
ANY LOCAL CHARTER.
IT WOULD BE AN EDITION.
IF A CHARTER HAS LOCALLY A WAY
OF DOING THIS, THEN THIS WOULD
SIMPLY BE AN ADDITIONAL WAY.
>> BUT THERE IS SERIOUS
QUESTION ABOUT THAT, THAT IS IS
IF THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS TO A
SUBJECT JUST LIKE WE TALK ABOUT
SOMETIMES WITH STATUTORY
SCHEMES PREEMPTING LOCAL, THERE
WOULD BE A QUESTION, WOULD THEY
NOT, THAT SINCE THERE WAS A
PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION
ABOUT IT, WHETHER OR NOT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COULD PROVIDE OTHER
WAYS IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION -- ARE YOU SAYING
WITHOUT QUESTION LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS COULD HAVE
ALTERNATIVE WAYS IN ADDITION TO
THIS?
>> IF YOU'RE ASKING ME FOR A
LEGAL OPINION BASED ON JUST --
>> YES, I'M ASKING YOU AS
SPONSOR, AS THE SPONSOR OF THE
THIS AMENDMENT.
>> TO THE EXTENT I CAN SPEAK
FOR HIM, IT IS MY OPINION IT'S
SIMPLY AN ADDITIONAL WAY.
IT HAS NO INTENTION TO PREEMPT
ANY OTHER WAY OF DOING IT.
>> WELL THIS IS THE PROBLEM AND
WE SEE THIS UNFORTUNATELY THIS
WEEK WE HAD THE RIGHT TO KNOW
AND WHETHER IT INCLUDED NURSING
HOMES.
YOUR STATEMENTS AT ORAL
ARGUMENT TODAY WE MAY LOOK AT
IT IN THREE YEARS FROM NOW AND
SAY, WELL, MR.^GRIMES SAID THIS
BUT THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IS
THAT THIS THAT THE ACTUAL
LANGUAGE DRAFTED BY THE
PROPONENTS SAY THAT IT WAS
INTENDED TO PREEMPT OR MODIFY.
WE HAVE -- AND WE ARE NOT GOING
TO GIVE AN ADVISORY OPINION ON
THAT SO WE ARE SETTING
OURSELVES RIGHT UP FOR, YOU
KNOW, LITIGATION.
IT'S MORE THAN INARTFULLY
WORDED.
IF YOU ARE SAYING IT WOULDN'T
PREEMPT LOCAL INITIATIVES THEN
THAT EVEN THAT PURPOSE.
>> IT IS IT DOESN'T SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT PREEMPTING LOCAL
-- IT SAYS PREEMPTING HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY.
AND, AND IN THE EVERGLADES IN
SMOKE-FREE CASE, IT, IT DOES,
THERE'S A, DISCUSSION IN THERE
THAT THE BALLOT SUMMARIES DON'T
HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT THE
EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT ON
LOCAL ORDINANCES SUCH AS THAT
BUT THAT, BUT TO GET TO YOUR
POINT, IT'S NOT PREEMPTING
ANYTHING LOCAL.
IT'S SOMETHING VOTERS
PARTICULARLY IN THOSE COUNTIES
THAT DON'T HAVE THIS ABILITY TO
BE ABLE TO HAVE A LIMITED WAY
OF AMENDING.
IF I AM A VOTER, IF I WANT TO
HAVE A REFERENDUM I AM GOING TO
VOTE FOR IT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S
LIMITED OR WHETHER OR NOT I
EVEN KNOW IT'S LIMITED.
IT WOULD GIVE ME SOMETHING I
DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE.
>> WELL, ISN'T THAT PART OF THE
DECEPTION ARGUMENT THAT YOUR
OPPONENT IS MAKING AND THAT IS
THAT YOU'RE ADDRESSING IT UP AS
IF YOU'RE GETTING SOMETHING
THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE.
BUT YOU'RE MAKING IT SO
DIFFICULT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER
THAT IT'LL NEVER BE INVOKED.
>> WELL THAT'S -- I WOULD
DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT IT WOULD
NEVER BE INVOKED.
>> WELL I'M SAYING THAT THIS IS
THE ARGUMENT.
AND NOW YOU, BUT THAT YOU'RE
DRESSING IT UP AS SOMETHING AS
A VERY ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE
TO REQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
TO PUT THESE THINGS ON THE
BALLOT EVERY TIME BUT THAT IN
EFFECT IT'S NOT.
A VERY ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE.
IT IS FULL OF GLITCHES AND
GOTCHAS AS FAR AS THAT YOU HAVE
TO DISCLOSE YOUR FINANCIAL
INTERESTS AND YOU HAVE GOT TO
GO TO THE SUPERVISOR OF
ELECTIONS OFFICE.
IN OTHER WORDS TITS THROWING UP
SO MANY OBSTACLES THAT ALL THIS
ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE THING
ENDS UP BEING DECEPTIVE.
>> LET ME ONE POINT.
THE ONLY PERSON THAT HAS TO
POINT OUT THEIR FINANCIAL
INTEREST IS THE PERSON WHO
OFFERS IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
NOT EVERYBODY THAT SIGNS THE
PETITION.
>> THE ONLY --
>> BUT EVERYBODY THAT SIGNS THE
PETITION HAS TO GO TO THE
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.
>> THE SUPERVISOR -- WHICH I
SUBMIT IS, IS NOT TOTALLY OUT
OF THE BALL PARK.
I KNOW OF --
>> WELL, THE PEOPLE THAT SIGN
THIS PETITION TO GET THIS ON
THE BALLOT DON'T HAVE TO GO TO
THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
OFFICE, DO THEY?
>> NO, NO PEOPLE CAN COME OUT,
THEY SOLICIT THEM ON THE STREET
OF COURSE THAT'S RIGHT.
>> WITH THAT YOU HAVE USED YOUR
TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
BOTH OF YOU FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.