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?
Just some? If I could just talk to a select group of people when putting together a plan, that is what I would prefer. As soon as the public is invited, the crackpots start showing up.Chet said:Bad idea.
Some of the best plans have no public input.
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.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.
Okay, what is worse, voting with out knowing the facts and educated on the issues or not voting at all? I think the first is worse. And hey, I have been guilty of this. When I was 18 I walked into the poll booth and hit straight Republican ballot. I didn’t know a soul on it, but its sounded like the best way to vote according to the family, friends, and media. Wow was that stupid. I really did the country a disservice that day.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.
I didn't expect that from you, EG. Cool.EG said:FLA: Learn to count, then vote.
This really pisses me off. Governance by referendum is just a way for elected representatives to skirt their responsabilities and avoid voting on controversial subjects. The public is way too fickle and really isn't educated enough to vote on specific issues, and frankly I for one would rather someone smarter than myself mulling over the hard questions.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....
I have no doubt that it would be a very bad thing and a tool for NIMBYs. I know too much about Greek democracy to support very much direct democracy.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.
And the problem is.... ?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?
Well, in my Florida City, the only things that "unelected bureaucrats" have the final word on are fence heights, setbacks, and some historic preservation certificates of appropriateness. These all can be appealed to our (elected) City Council if the applicant does not like the administrative decision. Zoning and land use changes must be approved by the full City Council. At least where I am, any "power" we bureaucrats have over people's lives is kept in check by our elected officials.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.
In a roundabout way... Gov. Jeb sure seems to think so.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?
I agree that the current Growth Management system is broken. However, I think the current "hands off" policy of DCA is a result of the Jebster. Everything I've heard come out of Tallahassee is that it is only going to get worse (if that's possible).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.