Someone’s fear drives ballot issues

As the summer election season heats up, most of us will be inundated by messages from one candidate or another, extolling their own virtues and degrading the lack of virtue of their opponents.

Mud-slinging has come to be the order of the day in the political process. Voters can no longer simply study the platforms of each candidate and come to a decision, they are now forced to wade through the often trumped up trash about any particular candidate in an attempt to find the truth of those platforms.

That’s a sad state of affairs. Even sadder is that the best-financed candidate usually comes out on top.

And as if wading through that quagmire isn’t enough, voters this year are also faced with some important decisions by way of proposed constitutional amendments and local referendums.

On the local scene, the Monroe School Board is asking voters to eliminate the position of an elected superintendent and instead allow the board to appoint a top educator.

We have always felt that an appointed superintendent makes the most sense. That person would be directly responsible to the five-member board of education that has been elected by the voters to provide policy oversight.

An appointed superintendent would eliminate the board-administrator infighting that all too often crops up as superintendents answerable only to a constituency try to mold practice into a kingdom of their own making.

But voters will also have some tough decisions to make on the state level.

Big developer money has been pouring into a campaign to beat Amendment 4. Amendment 4, commonly referred to as the Hometown Democracy initiative, would allow the voters to have final say over any comprehensive plan changes to their land use regulations.

Based on the collapse of the Florida economy, fueled by runaway growth for more than two decades, allowing those who are vested in the state’s quality of life doesn’t seem like such a bad idea.

And it is an idea that is feared by big development money.

Some of the tactics being used by those opposing this newest version of true home rule are that it would make the voting process so cumbersome no one would show up, clogging ballots with “inconsequential” decisions.

The opponents have gone so far as to say that a zoning variance allowing a fence set back would have to go on the ballot. We hope no one is taken in by that ruse.

They claim that no churches or schools could be built. We hope we all realize that we as an electorate are smarter than that and realize the good done by a school or church in a neighborhood as opposed to a land use change that allows a 10-story hotel on pristine waterfront.

The first claim is patently untrue. The second assumes that those who vote will just turn down everything, including those items that enhance our quality of life. Of course, we aren’t told that a church or school is allowed in almost any zoning category by virtue of its community enhancement.

And then along come Amendments 5 and 6. Those voter-driven amendments are designed to limit the amount of electoral district gerrymandering that can be done by seated politicians.

Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing voting district lines to favor the incumbent, or the political party in power.

Seated politicians are so fearful of Amendments 5 and 6 that they voted in the last term to put Amendment 7 on the ballot.

Amendment 7 is little more than a voter-approved exemption from the rules of Amendments 5 and 6.

If Amendment 7 passes, it matters not whether voters approve five or six, the politicians will have given themselves voter approval to continue business as usual on the gerrymandering front.

It is important every election cycle to become informed and educated about not just the candidates running for office, but the issues we’ll be asked to decide at the ballot box come November.

The three issues mentioned above make that even more important this cycle.

Research the issues.

Ask the hard questions.

Come to your own conclusions.

No Comments »