Amendment could bring balance

Recently, a couple of letter writers have "connected the dots" between undocumented meetings and decisions on development projects in Jacksonville.

I agree with those who think that there is a direct correlation between Florida's Government-in-the Sunshine Law violations, "green room" access by developer lobbyists and the resulting decisions the City Council makes on development projects in Jacksonville.

There were projects like Freedom Commerce Centre, Black Hammock Island and other developments where developer access to council members may have steered decisions on these projects. It was access citizens did not have.

Citizens voiced opposition at every public hearing and planning analysts attested to the negative environmental impacts of the projects, yet the projects were still approved.

In regard to Black Hammock Island, inappropriate conversations by council members who advocated for the approval of development at Black Hammock Island were raised as an issue during these deliberations.

But Sunshine Law violations are yet another indication that our process of making decisions on development is not working.

There are typically 55 to 60 amendments to our Comprehensive Plan (the blueprint for land use now and into the future) to support development projects each year.

The City Council rejects almost none of them, often despite considerable citizen opposition.

Will increased compliance with the Sunshine Law effect a balance between public vs. developer input? That remains to be seen.

However, there is another way.

The Florida Hometown Democracy constitutional amendment (www.floridahometowndemocracy.com) would require that before a Comprehensive Plan change can be approved, citizens must vote on the project, after council members give it their "rubber stamp" approval.

This essentially would put the citizens in charge of the places where they live.

An example is the Cecil Commerce Center referendum, a complex issue for Jacksonville that allowed citizens to weigh in.

Registered voters can download a petition from the Web site to support putting this amendment on the 2009 ballot.

Will citizens always say "no" to Comprehensive Plan changes for development projects?

Hopefully not, but we think it will bring more balance to the decision process.

After all, taxpayers endure the traffic congestion, school overcrowding and higher taxes long after the developer has taken his money to the bank.

JANET LARSON