The Unknown Amendment
I was recently asked about Charter Amendment 2. I was like everyone else, completely overwhelmed by the debate about Amentment 1, that I didn’t have an opinion. Now I have looked it up, and now I have one.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE CHARTER AMENDMENT 2 Protection of City-owned Lands Acquired or Used for Conservation, Recreation, or Cultural Purposes SHALL THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THAT THE SALE OR CONVERSION TO ANOTHER USE OF CITY-OWNED LANDS ACQUIRED OR USED FOR CONSERVATION, RECREATION, OR CULTURAL PURPOSES BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IF APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORS IN THE CITY IN A CITY-WIDE REFERENDUM ELECTION?
Ok, so it looks like a carbon copy of the ballot initiative we saw back in November, except that it was COUNTY-OWNED lands, like the ones be bought with Alachua Forever money. I voted yes for that. We voted by referendum to spend that money to begin with. HOWEVER, what city owned lands have we voted to purchase by referendum? None that I can think of. So, what lands could they be keeping a future city commission from selling? Well, it could stop them from selling Ironwood Golf Course, that recent recipient of over a million dollars. At this present time, there is no danger of Ironwood being sold. But the recent vote to spend the money has made it a lightning rod for criticism.
Our two charter amendments that are on this March 24 ballot are object lessons on distrust. The first one came about because a large number of citizens cannot trust their city commissioners’ judgment when it comes to public safety. The second one is there because this city commission does not trust future city commissions to protect public lands.
Comments, anyone?
“Our two charter amendments that are on this March 24 ballot are object lessons on distrust. The first one came about because a large number of citizens cannot trust their city commissioners’ judgment when it comes to public safety. The second one is there because this city commission does not trust future city commissions to protect public lands.”
I agree with the above statement! I believe that the smaller, the more local a government is the more accountable and effective it is. I believe that is why the founders favored a decentralized form of government ruled by the law. With regards to amendment one, if we distrust our local officials with making the right calls, how does it make any sense to give up local control over policies that affect our community to a bunch of bureaucrats in Tallahassee. If we don’t like the decisions that our local officials have made then fire them (officials) and overturn them. Once we give up the right of self-determination to Tallahassee it will not be so easy to get it back. I don’t think that is a hard concept to grasp!
1Jorge, you haven’t been here very long, have you? The people who support charter one don’t want to govern. They just want to limit the government that they have.
Y’see, 80-90% of Gainesville citizens who are registered to vote do not care enough to vote in the city elections that are held each spring. Each one is a big surprise, and they seem generally annoyed that they are expected to vote, let alone participate in any more meaningful way. So, we are stuck with the biggest eager-beaver world-beaters who want to run our lives in every possible way. And Gainesville seems to be fine with that…with limits. And Charter One is the limit they have chosen this year.
2What lands would they be keeping the commission from selling? The City has a dozen or more natural areas that people visit every day. They’ve been managing conservation land longer than Alachua County Forever has been in existence.
Actually, I think the amendment was proposed by the same people who organized and supported the sales tax referendum you say you supported (the one that’s funding (Alachua County Forever), and for the same reason that the county has a similar amendment: the City is also specifically receiving money to buy conservation land through the 1/2 cent sales tax. If people are willing to vote to tax themselves to buy greenspace, they deserve some assurance that it will stay green and not go to the highest bidder. I don’t like the idea that all it would take for some influential person to buy a park so they could have a bigger backyard would be to convince a couple of commissioners–this may seem like an exaggeration, but these things definitely can and do happen. If we’re talking about taking away parks that people use, the bar needs to be higher.
3Don,
4Thanks for the reply, this is my second year living in Gainesville! I guess I am expecting too much from my fellow citizens.
I supported Alachua County Forever because it had a short period of time to collect and spend money. I opposed the 1/2 cent sales tax because it is permanent. I don’t like the idea that they will be able to keep buying and buying land to take off the tax rolls forever, and that it would take a ballot initiative to change that.
5