Editorial: The truth about Amendment 1

[tflaris]

Editorial: The truth about Amendment 1 Published: November 2, 2014
Amendment 1 is the one item on the ballot on which even the most partisan Democrats or Republicans should agree.

The Water and Land Conservation Legacy Amendment would, without raising taxes, protect the state’s environment and economy, ensuring future growth did not ruin natural resources or overwhelm our water supply.

Don’t believe the nonsense being spread about Amendment 1 being a land grab.

It represents a conservative approach to land preservation, emphasizing property rights rather than government regulations.

If 60 percent of voters back the amendment, it would require that one-third of the state’s documentary-stamp tax revenues already being collected be used for conservation purposes. This is expected to be about $700 million annually.

This would be no massive windfall. The state traditionally used about that amount of the doc stamp to fund its preservation efforts. But lawmakers essentially abandoned conservation during the recession and have yet to restore adequate funding.

Tallahassee’s continued neglect is foolish, particularly with growth ramping up again.

If the state does not act quickly, key resources will be lost forever. So will economic opportunities.

The amendment would fund the protection of the beaches, springs, lakes and forests that underpin Florida’s appeal. But equally important, it will allow the state to protect and, if necessary, restore the water resources that are becoming increasingly precious as Florida’s population nears 20 million.

In a state that already must frequently resort to water restrictions, sensible conservation is essential to our continued growth and prosperity.

Critics who claim the amendment would divert money from more critical needs, such as schools or health care, miss the mark. The amendment’s funding would represent only 1 percent of the state’s budget, hardly an inordinate amount to devote to safeguarding resources essential to Florida’s quality of life.

It’s important to recognize the amendment requires only a certain percentage of the doc stamp be used for conservation. The actual dollar amount would go up or down with the economy.

Moreover, the amendment’s requirements would last only 20 years, which should allow the state to address its most pressing environmental needs, including water supply. It is not an eternal commitment.

And don’t buy those charges that the amendment will take huge swaths of lands off the tax rolls. Most of the undeveloped land that would be affected is not being heavily taxed and, in any event, land acquisition would be selective.

In many cases, the program will be used to buy development rights, which would allow the continued use of ranches and other agricultural lands, but ensure that tracts that help recharge the aquifer or buffer rivers and lakes are not paved over. Landowners would be reasonably compensated for giving up the development rights.

And as Hillsborough and other counties with land-buying programs have found, properties near conservation tracts typically go up in value because people enjoy natural settings.

It cannot be stressed enough that neither the state nor any other public entity would force owners to sell their land. It would solely be the decision of landowners. This is what property rights are all about.

Voters also should know the amendment is about much more than land acquisition.

Under the amendment, the conservation fund also could be used to manage public lands and recreation trails, improve water quality and help clean up the Everglades. It would allow the public more land for hunting and other activities.

For example, the Florida State Parks System has $400 million of land management and maintenance needs, but the Legislature has provided only about $15 million each of the last few sessions.

Likewise, lawmakers have grossly underfunded water sustainability projects that would help reduce many communities’ dependence on groundwater, the pumping of which can cause severe environmental damage.

Amendment 1 would reverse this neglect.

Another common complaint is that such matters don’t belong in the state constitution.

But preserving the natural assets vital to Florida’s livability and prosperity is no trivial matter. Sufficiently funding water and land conservation is vital to Florida’s welfare.

Sometimes, when Tallahassee refuses to act on critical issues, it is necessary for citizens to take matters into their own hands, and the constitutional referendum process is their viable option.

Voters should not be distracted from the real question: Should Florida invest a mere 1 percent of its budget to safeguard its water supply and the beaches, springs, rivers and other natural riches that make it such a wonderful place to live?

Both conservatives and liberals should be able to agree the answer is obvious.

http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-edi...nt-1-20141102/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jay]

You seem to be the most active on here following all water issues.
So what is your personal opinion?
And who wrote this piece?
Should cave divers support this? I am just asking because the language of some of these amendments are confusing and I want to support it if it reads the way I think it does.

[tflaris]

Jay
I always encourage others to become informed and involved.

I felt this legislation was important and I voted for it.

Kind Regards
TF


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk