Mike D. said:Absoluely not!
A large portion of the population does not understand the effects of different land uses on the surrounding areas. In FL I could see driving ranges everywhere, simply because people want them. Bad example but you get the point right?
Chet said:Bad idea.
Some of the best plans have no public input.
Rem said:I agree with the sentiment that politicians who make bad land use (or other) decisions should be voted out. The problem most of you face of course if the poor level of voter turnout for elections. You end up with unrepresentative government.
I don't support the notion that pure democracy requires electoral participation to be optional. A push for mandatory voting would be a more effective measure to increase democractic participation and representation in land use and other public policy debates.
Michael Stumpf said:Since I'm not in favor of widespread public participation in planning, it only stands to reason that I don't favor it in voting, either. If people are too stupid, are apathetic, or simply don't care to vote, so be it. The ones who are more educated and concerned will vote, and that is too much as it is. If we could get down to about ten percent of the population - those really capable of making a good, informed decision - voting in our elections, we would be far better off than if everyone voted.
EG said:FLA: Learn to count, then vote.
Huston said:According to NPR this morning, this movement for petition signatures is gaining momentum fast and has a chance of getting on the ballot.
watch out felllow floridians....
BKM said:jordanb, you are again proving that you don't know much what you are talking about.
You ain't seen nothing until a city passes a referendum that makes any major development/annexations require an election. (Davis, California, for example) That's heavy-handed planning.
Out in California, the land of ballot-box planning, NIMBYism uses ballot box planning to severely limit housing development. Very few ballot box initiatives are related to "heavy handed" zoning regulations.
Repo Man said:Do you think any vacant land that is located adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods would ever get rezoned to anything but open space if people could vote on re-zoning?
jordanb said:My point is that considering the way it currently is, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats have incredible amounts of power over people's lives, often not for the better, it's completly natural that people would lash out this way.
plannerkat said:..... However, will turning the power to make land use decisions over to the yahoos who think zoning regulations are the root of all evil unless the rezoning request is down the street from them really going to improve things?
lowlyplanner said:I'm going to come in as the devil's advocate here for a moment...
The website is exactly right about the lack of oversight from DCA on the comp plans - our town did around 80 amendments last year... small scale and semi-annual (i.e. large scale). Generally people want to change the Land Use designation of their property so they can develop.
Is there a point to designating Land Uses in the comp plan if owners can change them at will?
I'm not saying that allowing people to vote on them is the best idea, but the current Growth Management system is clearly broken.