Back to All About SoWal

Amendment 4

30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal Insider
2,800 views
Refernda Required For Adoption And Amendment Of
Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans

Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new
comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive
land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be
subject to vote of the electors of the local government by
referendum, following preparation by the local planning
agency, consideration by the governing body and notice.
Provides definitions.

The amendment?s impact on local government expenditures
cannot be estimated precisely. Local governments will incur
additional costs due to the requirement to conduct referenda in
order to adopt comprehensive plans or amendments thereto.
The amount of such costs depends upon the frequency, timing
and method of the referenda, and includes the costs of ballot
preparation, election administration, and associated expenses.
The impact on state government expenditures will be
insignificant.

Curious how folks are feeling about this. I know there's another thread on it, wondering if people have made up their minds either way.

Edited

Replies

15
seagrovegirl avatar
seagrovegirlBeach Fanatic
#2
How often will a referendum come before it is voted on. Will the county stock pile land use change referendums and we vote on them once a year? Is this for Residential Property or Commercial, or both? What type of land use changes are allowed? Ie: can a residential lot next door to me be changed to commercial use? Where is the true interpretation of this Amendment?
30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal InsiderAuthor
#3
I'm not sure, I guess it depends on the definition of "comprehensive land use plan". The ambiguity in this concerns me a bit. I sense it might be very expensive for the county to implement. That money would have to come from someplace else, like education and basic services.
30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal InsiderAuthor
#6
It looks like it was amended 4 times in 2008 and none in 2009 or 2010?

That seems right up to 2009, it was last update 2/2010.
Andy A avatar
Andy ABeach Fanatic
#7
Let me say this as succinctly as I can. Amendment 4 is a bad idea.
Matt J avatar
Matt JSWGB
#8
Let me say this as succinctly as I can. Amendment 4 is a bad idea.

See you at the new Wal-Mart. :wave:
30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal InsiderAuthor
#9
See you at the new Wal-Mart. :wave:

Is there truth to what you're insinuating? Did the wallmart on 98 require changes to the master plan?
Matt J avatar
Matt JSWGB
#10
Is there truth to what you're insinuating? Did the wallmart on 98 require changes to the master plan?

I doubt they were paying taxes on commercial land prior to 2007.

Walton County Record Search
30ashopper avatar
30ashopperSoWal InsiderAuthor
#11
I doubt they were paying taxes on commercial land prior to 2007.

Walton County Record Search

What does this have to do with a state constitution amendment that requires all changes to a county's master plan be voted on through referendum?
scooterbug44 avatar
scooterbug44SoWal Expert
#12
The fact that St. Joe is against it is making me think I should vote for it.
SHELLY avatar
SHELLYSoWal Insider
#13
The fact that St. Joe is against it is making me think I should vote for it.

...that's the best reason to vote for it--although JOE won't be doing much of anything over the next several days other than "damage control" after Einhorn tore it a new one at today's Value Investing Congress.
KoaBeach Fanatic
#14
Just wait until you try and read through a ballot if this passes. Every land use change will be on the ballot. Currently, attempting to educate yourself on any project in a reasonable manner takes much time attending planning meetings and commissioner meetings. Have you ever read the legal ads in the newspaper about proposed changes? They will often use only the parcel id and the new development name with a legal description. A few months ago, many people were outraged that they didn't understand which properties were trying to be changed for land use because they listed only parcel IDs. The same would hold true if it made it to the ballot. I cannot imagine how little information we would actually get if a project was on the ballot. We wouldn't have building plans, project plan layouts, road plans, utility plans, buffer plans, etc. Projects wouldn't have to show that their new use was compatible with the surrounding areas. If we change it to have the people decide on the ballot, without any thought, you might have a Walmart backed up to your house. At least they now have to go through a well thought planning process and jump through meaningful hoops.

If you ever vote for or against something only because someone is for or against it, you are cheating yourself and all the people in Walton County. Think about how easy it would be for a developer to promote a yes vote by advertising and campaigning. It will cost them more (which is why they don't want it), but it is fairly easy to manipulate the masses. I wonder if they will also be allowed to post signs on the roadsides like the candidates running for office. Lord help us all if that is the case. Political signs will have nothing on the developer signs.
KoaBeach Fanatic
#15
For those of you who are against a Walmart coming to SoWal, did you attend the planning meetings or the commissioner meetings and stand up and speak against it? You had the opportunity to voice your concern.

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts