WHAT IT DOES IS, IN MY JUDGMENT, FARRELLY SUMMARIZES A PORTION OF THE SCOPE FAIRLY SUMMARIZES APORTION OF THE SCOPE OF THE ACT SECTION IN 163.

163 TELLS US W HAT A COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL PLAN IS THAT IS GOVERN ED BY CHAPTER IS 63.

BY CHAPTER 163.

YOUR HONOR , IF CHA PTER 163 PROVIDED A SPECIFIC ELEGANT DEFINITION OF L OCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PL AN, THEN THE SPONSOR WOULD VERY EASILY BEEN ABLE TO , A S IN THE C AS E OF OTHER AMENDMENTS , REFERENCE L O CAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEANS THEPLAN, AS DEFINED I N SECTION 163.XXX.THERE IS NO SUCH DEFINITION. ONE HAS TO DISCERN, BY READING , I DON'T KNOW , 30 OR 40 PA GES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, IN OR DER TO ASCERTAIN WH AT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVEL AND USE PLAN IS. THERE IS NO DEFINITION PROVIDED FOR, IN THE STATUTE , THAT CO ULD HAVE B EEN EASILY REFERENCED.

LET ME UNDERSTAND, THOUGH, THAT WHAT WILL HAPPEN ON THE DAY AFTER THIS IS ADOPTED , IS THAT A NY A MENDMENT TO A 163 COMPRE HENSIVE PLAN , WILL HAVE TO, THEN , GO T O A REFERENDUM .

IN LIEU OF THE F INAL ADOPTION HEARING BY THE L OCAL GO VERNING BODY, YOUR H ONOR , THAT LEGISLATIVE A CTION WOUL D BE TAKEN AT A REFERENDUM OF THE CITIZENS WITHIN THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION.

SO YOUR ANSWER TO MYQUESTION IS YES, THAT IT W OULD HAVE TO , BEFORE ANY PLAN COULD BE AMENDED AT ALL , ANY PLAN UNDER 163 , COULD BE AMENDED AT AL L, AFTER THIS WAS ADOP TE D , IT WOULD HAVE TO W AIT FOR A REFERENDUM VOTE.

YES, YOUR H ONOR. ANY CHAPTER 163 PART T WO LOCAL GOVE RNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , BEFORE THE, IT COULD BE AME NDED , THAT THAT LEGISLATIVE ACTION WOULD BE A REFERENDUM OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. IF THE CITIZENS D E CIDED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO AMEND THEIR PLAN , THEN IT WOULDN'T OBVIOUSLY

I HAVE GOT ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU. WOULD THAT , AL SO, BE T RUE OF A 161 PLAN , OF A COU NTY PLAN OF A 171 PLAN , OF A COUNTY PLAN?

THERE IS NO 171 PLAN THAT I AM AW ARE OF , JUSTICEWELLS. THE ONLY PLAN S THAT ARE REFERENCED ARE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHE NSIVE LAND USE PLANS THAT ARE AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 163 PART TWO , AND SPECIFICALLY 163.3167, THE SC OPE OF THE ACT SE CTION, AND WHAT WEHAVE DONE IN OUR BRIEF, I S TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH NUMEROUS STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL APPALACHIAN S THAT APPELATIONS THAT DESCRIBE THE SAME THING, THAT IS THE PLANS THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED IN FLORIDA SINCE AT LE AST 1985, BUT WE USED TO ADOPT THEM PRIOR TO THE '85 ACT , UNDER THE '75 ACT , BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME MANDATORY EFFE CT. WE ALSO CITED C A SES IN FLORIDA WHERE PLAN NING HASGONE BACK E VEN BEFORE THE 1975 ACT, SO OUR CONTENTION IS THAT FLORIDIANS KNOW FULL WELL, WHAT A LOCAL GOV ERNMENT COMPREHE NSIVE LAND USE PLAN IS.

I F THE DEFI NITION IS SOMEHOW CONF USING IN THE AMENDMENT ITSELF , THEN IT D OES CAUSE A PROBLEM , BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS HERE TO WORK OUT THE DEFINITION, BUT LET'S , A S SUMING THAT IT IS AS N ARROW OR NARROW IN SCOPE AS YOU SAY AND NOT AS BROAD AS THE OPPONENTS SAY IT IS, AND WE GET PAST A SI NGLE SUBJECT CHALLENGE , I WOULDLIKE TO TALK ABOUT THEQUESTION OF WHETHER THE BALLOT SUMMARY IS MISLEADING IN TWO REGARDS. FIRST OF ALL , BY FOCUSING ON THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL TYPE OF ISSUES. DOESN'T IT CREATE , FOR THOSE THAT WOULD BE VOTING ON THIS , THIS I DEA THAT THERE WILL BE , THOSE WILL BE THE TY PES OF REFERENDA THAT THEY WOULD BE C ALLED TO CAST A VOTE ON , RATHER THAN THE PANOPLY OF OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE , COME U P ON A, I GUESS , MUST BE A CONTINUOUS BA SIS BEFORE LOCAL GOVERN MENT, SO THAT IS NUMBER ONE , AND MAYBE, IF YOU CAN ADDRESS YOURSELF JUST TO THAT PART, A S TO W HETHER THE COME ON FOR IT , AS FAR AS TALKING ABOUT NATURAL RESOURCES , IS , REALLY, MISLEADING AS TO WHAT CITIZENS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON.

I WILL DO MY BEST T O ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED , ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS, THAT IS THIS COURT , THAT ARTICLE II SECTION 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION , REQUIRES THE LEGISLATURE TO ADDRESS LAND USE , IN ORDER T O MEET REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH THEREIN, SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS S I MPLY TO EXPAND UPON THAT PROVISION IN ARTICLE II SECTION 7 AND TO ESTABLISH , AS A MATTER OF S TATE POLI CY , THAT INCREASED P UBLIC PARTICIPATION WILL , IN FACT , BENEFIT THE STATE IN ITS NATURAL RESO URCES AND SCENIC BEAUTY . NOW , THAT

I UNDERS TAND THAT. THAT SON PART OF IT , BUT THIS WOULD REQUIRE CITIZENS TO VOTE ON EVERYTHING F ROM CHANGES IN TRAFFIC PATTERNS OR, YOU KNOW , IN OTHER WORDS, THESE OTHER ISSUES THAT APPARENTLY, A GAIN , CAUSE THERE TO BE LITERALLY THOUSANDS AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMEN DMENTS OVER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD , TO THESE PLANS.

ABSOLUTELY NOT , CH IEF JUSTICE PARIENTE. THERE IS NO , THERE , THAT IS THE ARG UMENT THAT THE OPPONENTS WOULD LI KE TO HAVE YOU BELI EVE , THAT CHANGING THE CENTER LINE ST RIPE ON A HIGHWAY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A REFERENDUM VOT E. THAT IS SIMPLY ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS. THE COMPRE HENSIVE LAND USE PLANS ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD. THIS COURT , IN THE CO ASTAL DEVELOPMENT CASE , RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN S MALL SC ALE FU TURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS ENTAIL FUNDAMENTAL PO LICY DECISIONS THAT ARE ALEGISLATIVE MATTER. WHAT WE ARE PROP OSING TO DO IS TO SUB STITUTE , A S IS RECOGNIZED IN ART ICLE I S ECTION 1 OF OUR CONSTITUTION, THAT THE POWER IS APP ARENT IN THE PEOPLE. WE WANT TO DEINVOLVE THAT DELEGATION OF TO DE VOLVE THAT DE LEGATION OF POWERS T O CITY AND COUN TY COMMISSION IN THAT AMENDMENT.

THE Q UESTION OF AMENDMENTS IN THE SUMMARY , DOESN'T THIS APP EAR TO BE, REALLY, A SUGAR COATING , ORTHAT THAT WOULD BE THE N ICE BILLBOARD FOR PASSING THIS AMENDMENT , PER HAPS , OR THE ARGUMENT, YOU KNOW, MADE IN FAVOR OF IT , BU T IS IT REALLY THE ME AT OF THE COCONUT ? IN OTHER WORDS HAVE YOU NOT ADD ADD LAYE R HERE , THAT , REALLY, DISEXTRACTS THE V OTER , AND THEN AFTER THAT , OF COURSE , THERE IS A FAIRLY SPECIFIC STATEMENT, AND H AVEN'T W E CRITICIZED IN THE PAST , EFFORTS TO SORT OF , NOW , LOBBY IN THE BEGINNINGAND SAY YOU CAN'T PUT THE FIRST SENTENCE IN EVERYAMENDMENT HERE , THAT YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF CH EFERL AND APPLE PIE AND OF CHE FERL AND APPLE BIO -OF CHEF ARE LAY AND OF CHEVROLET AND APPLE P I E IN THE AMENDMENT AND IF PEOPLE RE JECT THIS , THEY ARE REJ ECTING CHEV ROLET AND APPLE PIE.

THE SUMM ARY DOES NOT PROMISE RELIEF FROM YOUR BAN SPRAWL , J USTICE AN STEAD .

WHAT DOES THE FIRST SENTENCE SAY?

THE FIRST SENTENCE SAYS THAT P U BLIC PARTICIPATION , OF THE SUMMARY? SAYS THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING BENEFITS FLORIDA'S NATURAL RESOURCES , SCENIC BEA UTY AND CITIZENS . THAT IS JUST - -

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT. IS PUBLIC , I S THE PUBLIC CURRENTLY ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?

HE YES, SIR, AND THAT IS A LSO RECOGNIZED IN THE TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN SAYING THAT INHUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IS ACONCERN TO FLO RIDA CITIZENS THAN SAYING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BENEFITS THENATURAL RESOURCES AND BEAUTY .

YOUR OPPONENTS , I THI NK , OBVIOUSLY THEY MA KE THE POINT , WHICH IS , TO ME , OF CONCERN, IS THAT IN THOSECASES , THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE PREG NANT PIG AMENDMENT WAS CRUELTY TO ANI MALS. THE SECONDHAND SMOKE WAS TO PROMOTE A HE ALTH BENEFIT. HERE , IT IS , B Y FOC USING ON SCENIC BEAUTY AND NATURAL RESOURCES , IT IS DEFLECTING THE VOTER FROM UNDERSTANDINGTHAT THEY WOULD BE REQU IRED TO BE VOTING ON A MULTITUDE OF ISSUES THAT HAVE ONLY MARGINAL RELEVANCE TO SC ENIC BEAUTY.

YOUR HONOR, I BEG TO DISAGREE. THERE IS , EVERY DECISION THAT IN VOLVES A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN , WILL ULTIMATELY AFFECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THESTATE , IN ONE WA Y OR THE OTHER , ADDING ANOTHER LANE , CHANGING THE LEVEL O F SERVICE. SCHOLARLY SIMILARLY WITH SIMILARLY WITH THE SCENIC BEAUTY. THOSE ARE BR OAD , AND THECOURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE WH OLE CHAPTER 163 PART 2 IS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY ARTICLE II SECTION 7 . THAT IS IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE, AND I SEE THAT I AM USING MY REBUTTAL TIME AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN ADDRESSED THE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT CASE, SO WITH THE COURT 'S PERMISSION .

YOU ARE THE ONLY, YOU EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT , AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE , SINCE THIS IS REALLY THEFIRST TIME THAT WE HAVE HADTHIS ISSUE IN ORAL ARGUMENT , AND YOUR CONCERN , BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A SPECIFIC RANGE OF IM PACTS , THAT THEY HAVE BEEN LE FT TO KIND OF QUESTION WHAT THE IMPACT IS ? IS THAT THE G IST OF YOUR

THAT IS NOT PRECISELY IT. WHAT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE IMPLEMENTING STATUTE REQUIRE IS THAT THERE BE AN ESTIMATE OR STATEM ENT OF PROBABLE IMPACTS NOT SPECULATION OF POSSIBLE IMPACTS. MOREOVER THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT IT BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, AND IN OUR INSTANCE IT IS NOT. IT IS VAGUE, BE CAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN REFERENCE PLANS O R PLAN AMENDMENTS. THEY REFERENCE CHANGES , AND , A LSO , THEY DON'T REFE RENCE REFERENDA. THEY REFERENCE APPROVAL .

BUT ISN'T SECTION 2 OF THAT , IS WHAT YOU , REALLY , SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, BUT ISN'T WHAT IS REALLY BEING SAID THERE, IS THAT IT DEPENDS ON, IT SAYS , THE ADDITIONAL COST WOULD BE INCURRED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE AM OUNT OF WHICH WILL VARY , DEPENDING ON STATUTORY CHAN GES IN THE PROCESSES CHOS EN BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS , TO OBTAIN APP ROVAL OF COMPREHE NSIVE LAND PLANS, AND ISN'T THAT REALLY A STATEMENT THAT SAYSTHAT, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY REFERENDA THEREMIGHT BE OR HO W YOU AREGOING TO CONDUCT THEM THAT, THAT IS WHY IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHAT THOSE ADDITIONAL COSTS WILL BE?

WELL , IT GOES BE YOND THAT TO SPECULATION ABOUT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY OR MAYNOT DO, JUSTICE QU INCE , BUTTHERE IS NO R OOM IN A FIN ANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT F OR THAT TYPE OF SPECULATION . ONE COULD PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE PROB ABLE IMPACT AND , PERHAPS , SET FORTH THE ASSUMPTION S THAT WENT IN TO DERIVING THAT EST IMATE , BUT TO SAY, WELL , IT COULD BE THIS OR IT COULD BE THAT.

BUT YOU A GREE THAT THERE WOULD BE, IF THIS PASSES , THAT THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF E LECTIONS HELD ON A YEARLY BASIS. OR DO YOU NOT AGREE WITH THAT?

I DON'T THIN K THAT THAT IS A CERTAINTY. I THINK THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT , YES

SO HOW WOULD THEY ESTIMATE, HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE , BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY WITH. HOW WOULD YOU PROP OSE THAT THE FIN ANCIAL ESTIMATING CON FERENCE MAKE THAT PROBABLE RANGE? WOULD YOU START FROM THERE COULD BE , I ME AN, WOULD THEY HAV E TO START TO ANTICIPATE OR FI GURE OUT HOW MANY ELECTIONS THERE WOULD BE?

YES, MA'AM. HOW MANY ELECTIONS THEREWOULD BE AND HOW THEY WILL BE CONDU CTED AND HOW MUCH THEY WILL COST. FOR EX AMPLE I F WE MOVE TO VOTE, MAIL-IN EL ECTIONS OR ELECTRONIC BALL OTING , THE COSTS COULD CHANGE.

BUT ISN'T THAT EVEN A POSSIBILITY? HOW COULD YOU BEGIN TO ESTIMATE HOW MANY AMENDMENTS THERE MIGHT BE TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ? THAT SE AL S SO METHING THAT A THAT SEEMS SOMETHING THAT AN ESTIMATING COMMISSION WOULDN'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT.

WELL , JUSTICE QUINCE , THEY COULD LOOK BACK AND SEEHOW MANY HAVE BEEN ADOPTEDIN THE PAST AND D RA W SOME CONCLUSIONS ABOU T THAT, BUT , AGAIN , I DON'T HAVE ANY PROPOSAL ON HOW THEY COULD REWRITE THE FINA NCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT. A LL WE ARE ARGU ING TO THECOURT , IS THAT IT OUGHT TO BE SENT BACK TO THEM FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND THE IMPLEMENTING STATUTE , THAT IT BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND THAT IT SET FORTH THE PROBABLE IMPACTS. THANK YOU .

MAY IT PLEA SE THE COURT. I AM BA RRY RICHARD, AND I AM COU NSEL FOR THE FOUNDATION FOR FLORIDA'S FUTURE.

I NOTICE THAT NOBODY IN OPPOSITION, REALLY, ADDRESSED THE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT. IS THAT SOMETHING WITHIN , IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PREPARED TO ADDRESS THAT? I GUESS , OR ARE YOU PREPARED TO ADDRESS THAT?

JUSTICE PARIENTE , I AM NOT, AND I DON'T KNOW, MY CLIENT WAS NOT FOCUSED ON THAT ISSUE AS ONE OF SIGNIFICANCE. WE THOUGHT THE OTHER TWO ISSUES WERE SO OVERRIDING , IT WASN'T NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THAT ONE.

CAN YOU BEGIN BY EXPLAINING TO US , JUST GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES OF THE WIDE RANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BE COVERED , AND IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS , THAT YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT IS JUST ONES THAT CONCERN SCENIC BEAUTY AND NATURAL RESOURCES.IT SEEMS L IKE THERE IS AN E NTIRE , AS JUSTICE PARIENTE SAID, PANO PLY OF ISSUES THAT ARE CONSIDERED IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. CAN YOU GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES.

YES , YOUR HONOR, I WILL DO THAT, IF I MIGHT PARENTHETICALLY JUST NOTETHAT AT COU NSEL TA BLE WITH ME IS AR THUR ENGLAND , AND WITH THE COURT'S PER MISSION , ILL FOC US ON THE SI NGLE SUBJECT ISSUE AND MR. ENGLAND WILL FOCUS ON THE BALLOT SUMMARY. HAVING SA ID THAT , YES , Y OU R HONOR . AS WE ARGU ED IN OUR BRIEF, WE BELI EV E THAT , DESPITE THE PROTESTATIONS OF THE PROPONENTS THAT THIS IS LIMITED TO CHAPTER 163 PLANS, IN FACT THE DEFINITION,WHICH IS EMBEDDED WITHIN THE AMENDMENT, ITSE LF BUT NOT MENTIONED IN THE SUMMAR Y, IS SO BR OAD AS TO I N CLUDE VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING. WHEN YOU READ THE DEFINITION , WHICH I S THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MEANS A PLAN TO G U IDE AND CONTROL FUTURE LAND DEVELOPMENT IN AN AREA U NDER THE JURISDICTION OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THAT IS VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING , EVERY ZONING AMENDMENT , EVERY PROVISION RELATING TO PARKING , EVERY PROVISION RELATING TO THE USE OF ANYNATURAL RESOURCES.

IF WE ACCEPT THAT THE PROPONENTS SAY THAT IT IS LIMITED TO CHAPTER 163 , ISN'T THE ISSUE OF ITS SCOPE , WOULDN'T THAT BE A QU ESTION THAT WOULD BE, I MEAN , WOULDN'T THAT BE SOMETHINGSUBJECT TO LITIGATION AFTER THE FACT ? I F THEY ARE CONCEDING HE RETHAT IT IS NOT AS BROAD AS TO COVER EVERY ZONING REGULATION , BUT IT IS BROAD , BECAUSE AS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THERE ARE A LOT OF AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANS , WHY WOULD WE FIND A S INGLE SU BJECT VIOLATION B Y LOOKING AND ASSUMING THAT IT IS MUCH BROADER THA N THE PROPONENTS SAY THAT IT IS?

I

IN OTHER WORDS MA YBE I SAY THE OPPOSITE, IF WE ASSUME IT IS LI MITED TO 163 , COMPREHENSIVE PLANS , IS THERE ST ILL A SINGLE SUBJECT VIOLATION?

WITHOUT A DOUBT , YOUR HONOR.AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT ISSUE OF HOW BROAD IT IS , IS ONE WHICH WOULD BE DETERMINED IN LITIGATION LATER. THAT STILL GOES TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOTTHE BALLOT SUMMARY ADEQUATELY INFORMS THE VOTERS OF WHAT THIS DOES. HOWEVER , MORE IMPORTANTLY AND IN DI RECT RESPONSE TO YOUR QUE STION, IT IS NOTREALLY AN ISSUE THAT I THINK IS CONTROLLING , WITH RE GARD TO SINGLE SUBJECT TODAY , BECAUSE EVEN IF WE WER E TO ASSUME THAT THIS IS LIMITED TO CHAPTER 163 PLANS , IT IS SELF-EVIDENT ON ITS FACE THAT, IT VIOLATES THE SINGLE SUBJECT REQUIREMENT , AND IN FACT , THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY DE CIDED CASESTHAT I BEL IEVE ARE MATERIALLY IN DISTINGUISHABLE FR OM THIS ONE IN THAT RESPECT , AND ILL ILLUSTRATE. AND I WILL ILLUSTRATE .

DOES CHAPTER 163 CONTAINOR ADDRESS A SINGLE SUBJECT?

NO , YOUR HO NOR, BUT CHAPTER 163 IS NOT REQUIRED TO, BECAUSE IT IS AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE.

BUT THAT IS NOT M Y QUESTION.

YES.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT CHAPTER 163 ADDRESSES MORE THAN A SINGLE SUBJECT?

I THINK SO , W ITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SE NSE. THIS COURT HAS SAID , IT SAID IN THE CASE INVOLVING ADEQUATE FU NDING OF EDUCATION , THAT YOU CA NNOT SATISFY THE SINGLE SUBJECT REQUIREMENT , SI MPLY BY PLACING MULTIPLE SUBJECTS UNDER A SINGLE UMBRELLA TITLE.

BUT DOESN'T SUB SECTION 12 OF 163.316-7 , ALREADY PROVIDE FOR LOCALGOVERNMENTS TO UTILIZE A REFERENDUM PROCES S?

ABSOLU TELY , YOUR HONOR, B UT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. THAT REFERE NDUM PROCESS TODAY , IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE MAN DWATS MANDATE, AND BY THE WAY MOST DON'T DO IT, BUT EVEN IF YOU HAVE A LOCAL REFERENDUM, THERESULT OF THAT REFERENDUM MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH LEGISLATIVE MANDATES UNDERTHE FOUR MA JOR PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED OVER THE PAST THREE DEC ADES , THAT REQUIRE LOCAL GOVE RNMENT TO ENGAGE IN BOTH MI NIMAL STANDARDS AND UN IFORM STANDARDS, WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE REGULATION. THIS WOULD RADICALLY SHIFT THAT, SO THAT THE LEGISLATURE WOULD NO LO NGER HAVE THE AB ILITY T O MANDATE MINIMUM STA NDARDS OR UNIFORMITY, BECAUSE NOW , BY CONSTITUTIONALITY , NO PLAN AND NO AM ENDMENT TO ANY PLAN , COULD BECOME V ALID , UN LESS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL VOTERS.

BEFORE WE GET AWAY FROM IT , DO YOU K NOW , CAN YOUTELL US W H ETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY CASE WHICH HAS SAID THAT 171.062 , FLORIDA STATUTE , REFERS TO AN AREA ANNEXED SUBJECT TO A COUNTY LAND USE PLAN OR COUN TY Z ONING OR LAND USE REGULATIONS. WHETHER THE COUNTY USE PLAN THAT IS BEING REFERRED TO THERE , I S A 163 PLAN? HAVE WE SAID THAT IN SOME CASE?

I AM NOT AW ARE O F ANY CASE, E ITHER WAY , YOUR HONOR , I AM NOT AWARE OF W HETHER THERE HAS BEEN A CASE THAT HAS ADDRESSED THAT. IT IS NOT SO METHING THAT I RESEARCHED IN THE COURSE OF MY PRE PARATION.

IN THE STATUTE AS POINTED OUT BY YOUR OPPONENT IN HIS BRIEF, THE STATUTES ARE FULL OF DIFFERENT COMPREHENSIVEPLANS UNDER 403, UNDER 171. THEY ALL REFER TO USE PLANS. I AM JUST INTERESTED I N KNOWING WHETHER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING IN ALL OF THE SE PLANS , OR WHETHER THERE I S ANY LINKAGE.

WELL, IF YOU LO OK AT THE DEFINITION, IT WOULD ENCOMPASS ALL OF TH OSE PLANS.

IN THIS.I DON'T FIND THAT DEFINITION IN 163.

I AGREE WITH YOU, YOUR HONOR. I CANNOT T ELL YOU THAT IT DOES. AS I INDICATED , I DON'T THINK IT MAK ES A DIF FERENCE, BECAUSE EVEN IF WE LIMIT OURSELVES TO 163, THERE ARE TWO THING THAT IS CANNOT BE DENIED. CLEARLY THIS IS A RA DICAL CHANGE IN THE POWER OF LOCALGOVERNMENT. TODAY ONE OF THE BROA DEST EXERCISED AND MOST SIGNIFICANT POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IS THE ABILITY TO CONTROL LAND USE. THIS WOULD PUT A SCREECHING HALT TO A VAST AR RAY OF LOCAL LAND USE REGULATIONS .

HOW DOES THIS REA LLY DIFFER FROM THE PRO VISION I N 163, THAT SAYS IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A N AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL PLAN THAT AFFECTS MORE THAN FIVE P IECES OF LAND , BASICALLY, THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT THAT TO A REFERENDUM. NOW , AS I READ THIS PROPOSAL , IT ME AN S THAT, IF IT IS FIVE , IF IT IS LESS THAN FIVE , YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO PUT IT TO A REFERENDUM. WHY ISN'T THAT A PROPER READING OF THIS AMENDMENT, PROPOSED AMENDMENT?

YOUR HONOR , I , YOUR QUESTION GI VES ME SOME CONCERN.I WOULD HAVE TO READ IT A GAIN , BUT MY RECOLLECTION OF 163 IS THAT IT DOES NOT MANDATE A REFERENDUM . A LL THAT IT SAYS IS T HAT , IN THE LESSER, THE SMAL LER CHANGES , THAT A REFERENDUM IS PROHIBITED , BUT IT L E AVES IT OP TIONAL TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

IF IT IS FIVE OR LESS. RIGHT.

AND IF IT IS MORE THAN FIVE, IT IMPLICITLY LEAVES IT WITHIN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S OPTION TO HAVE A REFERENDUM, I F THEY DESIRE TO DO SO , BECAUSE ALL IT DOES IS PROHIBIT IT , IF ITIS LESS THAN FIVE. WHAT I THINK , THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT THE ISSU E OF SINGLE SUBJECT I S FUNCTIONAL NOT LOCATIONAL. THE PROBLEM HERE IS IT IS A R ADICAL CHANGE IN THE FUNCTIONAL POWER OF BOTH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OF THE LEGISLATURE .

NOW, THERE WAS SOME ARGUMENT HERE ABOUT THE FACTTHAT, BEFORE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COULD FINALLY, MAKE A FINAL APPROVAL OF ANY AMENDMENT, THAT YOU HAD TO , OTHER AGEN CIES HAD TO LOOK AT IT, AND THE PLAN HAD T O BE I N CONFORMITY WITH THAT.ARE YOU ARGUING NOW THAT, BECAUSE OF T HIS , IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE ON THE BA LLOT AND PASSED, THAT Y OU WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS ?

WELL , YES, YOUR HONOR. THE REASON , YOU COULD G O THROUGH THAT PROCESS , BUT IN THE END RESULT , THAT, THAT , YOUR QUESTION GOES RIGHT TO THE CORE OF THE DIFFICULTY HERE. THE WAY THAT THE LAW IS CURRENTLY WO RDED , THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT POWERS RELATED TO LAND USE REGULATION. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT , CLEARLY HAS ESSENTIALLY UNLIMITED POWERS, WITH ONE EXCEPTION , WHICH ARE EXERCISED THRO UGH A LEGISLATIVE BODY , THE CITY OR COUNTY COMMISSIONS. THE ONLY EX CEPTION IS THAT THEY MUST RE MAIN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE MAND ATES OF THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE AND THE IMPLEMENTING ORDERS OF THE STATE EXEC UTIVE AGENCIES, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS

YOUR ARGU MENT IS THIS WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY , I S THAT

FROM BOTH OF THEM , YOURHONOR.

I GUESS THAT WAS YOUR POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE, SINCE IT IS YOUR SIGNIFICANT POINT THAT, YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS WILL NOT JUST IMPACT LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW INDIVIDUAL POPULOUS INRA PARTICULAR LOCATION, TO OVERRULE WHAT IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION, TO OVERRULE WHAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS MANDATEED?

ABSOLU TELY.

I GU ESS I A M HAVING T ROUBLE UNDERSTA NDING HOWTHAT WOULD OC CUR.

ALL RIGHT. WE NOW HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT SAYS NO AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CAN HA PPEN , UNLESS THER E IS A LOCAL REFERENDUM . IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT IS LIMITED T O THOSE AMENDMENTS INITIATED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. IT SAYS IT CANNOT HAP PEN PERIOD. SO IF THE F LORIDA LEGISLATURE MANDATES AS IT HAS DONE , THAT YOU MUST INCLUDE IN YOUR LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE , CERTAIN MINIMUM STANDARDS, AND THAT YOU MUST COMPLY IN AREAS 6 OF CRITICAL STATECONCERN WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, AND USE COORDI NATED MULTICOUNTY AND MULTISTATE EFFORT. THE LEGISLATURE SAYS THAT. IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT THIS WOULD DO. IT STILL MEANS THAT , IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, BEFORE ANY CHANGE CAN BE MADE BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY , THERE MUST BE A PU LP PUBLIC REFERENDUM. A PUBLIC REF PREPARED YOU MEAN.

SO YOUR A PUBLIC REFERENDUM.

SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS , I GUESS, BASED ON A BROADER READING OF THIS THAN YOUR OPPONENTS HAVE SUGGESTED.

NO, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK IT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE. WHA T I AM SAY ING IS THAT THIS AMENDMENT

THE LEGISLATURE CAN IMPOSE REQUIR EMENTS ON LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS?

YES. IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE TO SAY THAT THERE MUST BE A LOCAL REFERENDUM , UNLESS IT IS IMPLEMENTING A LEGISLATIVE MANDATE , THE N I WOULD AGREE THAT I T WOULD BE LIMITED , BUT IT DOESN'T SAYTHAT. IT SAYS , BE FORE THERE CAN BE A LOCAL AM ENDMENT , THERE MUST BE A REFERENDUM , AND IT DOE SN'T MAKE ANY DIFF ERENCE WHO MANDATED THE AMENDMENT .

BUT WHAT DOES THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT ITSELF , THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS SUBJECT TO VO TE OF THE ELECTORATES OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY REFERENDUM , FOLLOWING PREPAR ATION BY THE LOCAL PLAN NING AGEN CY , CONSIDERATION BY THE GOVERNING BODY AS PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAW AND NOTICE,ET CE TERA , ET CETERA. I MEAN , DOESN'T THOSE PROVISIONS TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION , THOSE THINGS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THAT THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , EVEN BEFORE IT IS SUB MITTED TO THE VOTERS , MUST F O LLOW WITH LEGISL ATIVE MANDATES BY GENERAL LAW?

I DON 'T READ IT THAT WAY, YOUR HONOR. I BELIEVE THAT , IF YOU READ IT IN CONTEXT , ITS REFERENCE TO GENE RAL LAW IS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEDURAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LOCAL REFERENDA , BUT YOU CAN NOT READ THIS ANY OTHER WAY BUT ONE, WHICH IS THAT BEFORE A NEW PLAN, AS THE PROPONENTS SUGGEST , OR AN AMENDMENT CAN POSSIBLY HAPPEN, IT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE VOTERS ON A REFERENDUM, PERI OD. IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO READ IT. THAT MEANS

MR . RICHARD, I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE SIGNIFICANTLY INTO MR . ENGLAND 'S TIME, AND I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU. YOU ARE FR EE TO CONTINUE.

THAT VIOLATES MY PRO MISE TOYS MR. ENGL AND , BUT HE ANDI , B OTH , HAVE LEARNED THAT,IF THE COURT WANTS ANSWERS , THAT IS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, S O IF THERE ARE N O F URTHER QUESTIONS, ILL SIT DOWN. OTHERWISE HE AND I, BOTH , WOULD BE MORE THAN PLEASED TO HAVE ME REM AIN. THANK , YOUR HONOR.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. ARTHUR ENG LAND. APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE , YOUR HONOR ? SEVEN MINUTES.I CAN DO THIS.

MR. ENGLAND , I AM NOTSURE THAT MR . RICHARD WAS EVER ABLE TO ANSWER MY QUESTION AS TO WHAT KINDS O F THINGS ARE INCLUDED IN CHANGES TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS AMENDMENT AND THE V OTERS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON , ASSUMING FOR THE MOMENT , THAT IT INC LUDES ONLY T RUE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND NOT ZONING CHANGES O R VARIANCES ? CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES.

OKAY FORM I WAS WAIT OKAY. I WAS WAITING FOR THE QUESTION. THE ANSWER IS , THE ANSWER IWOULD HAVE GIVEN THAT BA RR Y JUST JUST ABOUT TO GIVE , WAS THAT , HOW IT CHANGES EVERYTHING IS THERE A V ETO POWER AT THE END!

I UNDERSTAND. THAT I AM JUST SAYI NG, CANYOU GIVE ME SOME EX AMPLES OF THE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT THEY ARE GO ING TO BE VOTING ON. WHAT KI NDS OF THINGS ARE INC LUDED WITH IN AN AMENDMENT TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , AS OPPOSED TO A Z ONING CHANGE OR A VARIANCE.

SU RE. HERE IS THE MIAMI-DADE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS APPENDIX TO OUR BR IEF, AND IF YOU OPEN IT T O PAGE R OAM AND 261 , YOU WOULD S EE A MAP. IT IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IT HAS TO BE V OTED ON. THIS ONE HAPPENS TO BE AROUND THE MIAMI AIRPORT. THE CITI ZENS ARE GOING TO BE VOTING ON WHET HER THIS IS THE PROPER FUTURE USE OF THE AREA SURROU NDING THE AIRPORT ROADWAYS.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE VOTING ON THAT , ARE THEY? THEY ARE GOIN G TO BE VOTING IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO AMEND THAT MAP, THAT FUTURE USE. RIGHT NOW THAT AMENDMENT STAYS THE WAY IT IS. EYE I AM TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENTS. REMEMBER, AMENDMENTS HAVE TO BE MA DE. THESE ARE REVIEWED EVERY IS HE NOT TO TEN YE ARS.

ISN'T THAT EVERY SEVEN TO TEN YEARS .

ISN'T ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THAT THE PROPONENTS BELIEVE ALTH OUGH THERE HAVE BEEN COMPREHENSIVE PLANS , THERE HAVE BEEN TOO MANY AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ALTERING THE VERY NATURE OF WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO DO , WHICH WAS T O K EEP DEVELOPMENT UNDER A CE RTAIN LE VEL, SO THAT THIS IS

NO DOUBT THEIR PURPOSE , YOUR HONOR.

THAT IS THE PURPOSE , AND IT IS PRETTY, SO , WHAT IS WRONG WITH, I MEAN, IF THAT IS THEIR PURPOSE AND WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN LOTS OF THINGS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT HAVE CHANGED CERTAIN THINGS , WHAT IS IT THAT IS MISLEADING, THEN , ABOUT THE B ALLOT SUMMAR Y?

OK AY. THE BA LLOT SUMMARY. WE ARE BACK ON GROUND THAT I WANTED TO DISCUSS.

THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT YOU

TH AT IS WHAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.

I THOUGHT THAT IS WHAT JUSTICE CANTERO'S QUES TIONWAS GOING TO , BECAUSE I THINK HE WAS SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS A LARGER AR RAY OF TYPES OF PLAN AMENDMENTS THAN JUST THOSE THAT DEAL WITH SCENIC BEAUTY.

ALL RIGH T. LET ME GO TO THE BALLOT SUMMARY , IF THAT IS THE FOCUS OF THE QUESTION , BECAUSE STE PPING IN IF YOU IMAGINED YOURSELF FOR A M OMENT, NOT JUST ICES BUT AVERAGE VOTERS STEPPING INTO THE VOTER BO OTH, AND BEAR IN MIND YOU ARE PROBABLY NOT FAMILIAR WITH CHAPTER 163 , LET ALONE 1 8 0 AND 3 65 ANDBEAR IN MIND YOU HAVE PROBABLY NOT SA T IN A COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING IN WHICH THE F LUM HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE NE XT 20 YEARS IN DADE COUNTY. NOW YOU LOOK AT THE BALLOT AND YOU READ PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USEPLANNING, BENEFITS FLORIDA'SNATURAL RESOURCES , SC ENIC BEAUTY AND CITIZENS. YOU SAY THAT IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT.I SUGGEST TO YOU , FOUR THINGS ABOUT THAT. N UMBER ONE , YOU CAN'T SAYTHAT THIS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BENEFITS , ANYMORE THAN YOU COULD SAY THAT AN ADDITI ONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION PROVIDES TAX RELIEF. IT DEPENDS. A VOTE COULD NEGATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF N ATURAL RESOURCES .

WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION A FEW MON THS AG O.

WE DID INDEED. I REMEM BER IT WELL . ALSO, THAT STATEMENT THAT I JUST READ YOU , AND JUSTICE BELL, THIS IS CLOSE TO WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

MR. ENGLAND

IT IMPLIES THERE IS NO PARTICIPATION NO W!

MR. ENGLAND, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT , THAT IS NOT REALLY THE FIRST SENTENCE , THE FIRST THING THAT VOTER WOULD READ. THE FIRST THING WOULD BE THETITLE , WOULDN'T IT , THE REFERENDUM REQUIRED FOR ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF LOCAL GOVE RNMENT PLANS.

ABSOLUTELY.

SO THE FIRST THING THAT THE VOTER WOULD READ , WOULD ACTUALLY BE A STATEMENT THAT SAYS THAT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS A REFERENDUM FOR THE AD OPTION ANDAMENDMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANS, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE

ABSOLUTELY, AND THEY WOULD GET THAT OUT OF THE SECOND SENTENCE, ALSO, BUT THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THEY AREN'T GOING T O READ THE FIRST SEN TENCE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF WHY - -

I AM HIM SAYING WHAT THEY FIRST READ, HOWEVER , IS NOT

FIRST MAY HAVE BEEN EXCESSIVE.I THINK I CAN PUT THIS IN A COUPLE OF FORMATS THAT MAKE THIS REAL EASY ON THE BALLOT SUM MARY. WHAT IS THE CHIEF PURPOSE? I HAVE NO DOU BT THAT THE PROPONENTS THINK IT IS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS , NATURAL BEAUTY , NA TURAL RESOURCES , SCENIC BEAU TY, BUT WHAT IS THE CHIEF P URPOSE AS SE CTION 1016 11 REQUIRES, OF THE PROPOSAL ? NOT THE PROPONENTS OF THE PROPOSAL , AND THE ANSW ER TO THAT IS IT IS A FINAL VOTE THAT, IS HIS WO RD, O N ALL ELEMENTS O F A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT O R A NEW PROC ESS. ALL ELEM ENTS. THE LOCATION OF SCHOOLS , THE INTEGRATED MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF A COMMUNITY , HO USING FRAMEWORK FOR SOC IETY , THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BE THEY CITIES WITH IN, FOR EX AMPLE , MIAMI-DADE COUNTY , WHICH THERE ARE MA NY, OR THE NEIGHBORING COUNTIES. IT IS ALL THOSE THINGS. SO THE PROPONENTS SAY, WELL , THIS IS JUST A STATEMENT O F PUBLIC POLI CY. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS FOCUSED ON , CHIEF JUSTICEDID, THIS ISN'T SAYING MARINE RESOURCES BELONG TO ALL THE PEOPLE, WHIC H IS AFINE PUBLIC POLIC Y DECLARES. THIS IS - - DECLARATION. THIS IS SAYING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WILL BENEFIT , WILL BENEFIT NATURAL RESOURCES.THAT IS AN ACTION STATEMENT. IT IS NOT A DECL ARATION OF POLICY. HERE WOULD BE A T RUE PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT FOR THIS PROPOSAL , AS THE T EXT IS WRITTEN. IT WOULD READ, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN NING IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST . A COMP LETE PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT WITH NO ADVOCACY . NOW , WHAT DOES THAT DO? IF IT WERE THAT , IT WOULD CHANGE THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE ! THE ISSUE OF NATURAL RESOURCES WOULD BE IN THE CAMPAIGN ! ALONG WITH WHERE SCHOOLSSHOULD BE. ALONG WITH MA SS TRANSIT. ALONG WITH NEW ST ORM WA TERS AND SEWERS.

SO HUGH D O YOU SO HOWDO YOU, H OW DOES THIS O PENING SENT ENCE DIFFER FROMTHE ONE IN THE , SAY, HIGH-SPEED RAIL , WHERE THEY START OFF SAYING THAT , YOU KNOW , IT WOULD REDUCE TRAFFIC AND INCREASE TRAVEL ALTERNATIVES.

HIGH-SPEED RA IL , T HE OPENING STATEMENT THERE IS HIGH S PEED G ROUND RAIL TRANSPORTATION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTE REST. BINGO!

A FURTHER SENTENCE THAT TALKS ABOUT AND IT WAS ARGUED THAT THEY WAN TED TO REDUCE TRA FFIC AND INCR EASE TRAVEL ALTERNATIVES. HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM THAT?

WELL , AGAIN , I WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE FIRSTSENTENCE, BUT THE ANSWER, AND YOU HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE POINT , IF YOU READ THE SECOND SENTEN CE OF THIS PROPOSAL, IT IS FINE. IT DESCRIBES THE CONTEXT . AND THAT IS THE KEY HERE , BECAUSE WITH , AND YOU COULD JUST COMFORTABLY HAVE WRITTEN THIS TO ELIMINATE THIS FIRST SENTENCE ABOUT ENHANCING

SO THE FIRST SENTENCE IS ELIMINATED .

THEN THAT IS FINE.

THE SUMMA RY WOULD BE FINE?

IT IS FINE , AND THE POINT IS THEY DID N'T, AND THE POINT IS THE REASON IS THERE FOR EXACTLY THE REASONS YOU HAVE ALWAYS SAID YOU DON'T PUT ADVOCACY HE RE. YOU SAVE THAT FOR THE CAMPAIGN, AND THAT IS WHY HAVING LEFT THAT O UT , HAV ING PUT IT HERE IS THE DEBILITATING FA CTOR FOR THIS PROPOSAL, BE CAUSE IT WAS HERE BECAUSE IT WAS EMOTIONALLY CHARGED, BECAUSEIT WAS POLI TICAL RHETORIC . YOUR HONORS, MY TIME IS UP. I JUST REMIND YOU THAT , ASYOU HAVE SA ID IN RE CENT OPINIONS , YOU ASK TWO QUESTIONS A FTER BALLOT SUMMARY. DOES IT FARRELLY INFORM THE VOTE DOES I T FAIRLY INFORM THE VOTERS OF THE CHIEF PURPOSE? THIS ANT DOESN'T THIS ONE DOESN'T BECAUSE IT IS SO BROAD , AND THE SEC OND PURPOSE , IS THE LANGUAGE MISLEADING? AND THIS ONE IS , YOUR HONORS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THE ADVISORY OPINION ON THE PROPERTY RIGHTS AMENDMENTTHAT, IS THE SECOND G O AROUND

LE T ME ASK YOU THIS, I NOT ICE THAT THIS IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE II SECTION 7 , WHICH BEGINS WITH NATURAL RESOURCES AND SCENIC BEAUTY. SO WHY IS THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT SECTION?

THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, AND I WAS JUST GOING TO READ YOU THE QU OTE THAT INSPIRED THAT. IT SAYS , THE ADDITIONALLY, THE LEGISLAT URE IS REQUIRED , BY ARTICLE I I SECTION 7 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION , TO REGULATE THE USE OF LAND TO PROTECT FLORID A'S NATURAL RESOURCES AND SCENIC BEAUTY. END QUOTE . THERE ARE PROVISIONS THAT HAVE GONE INTO THE MISCELLANEOUS SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE COURT HAS SAID THAT THE PLACE IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE AN AMENDMENT OR INITIATIVE IS PLACED, IS NOT DETERMINATIVE . ARTICLE II SECTION 7 WAS AMENDED WITH ONE OF THE EVERGLADES PROV ISIONS , SO IT SEEMED LOGI CAL , GIVEN THE COURT 'S PRONOUNCEMENT AND G IVEN THE PREDICATE FOR CHA PTER 1 63 P AR T 2 IN ARTICLE II SECTION 7 , SINCEWE WERE TALKING ABOUT LAND USE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ADOPTED UNDER THAT STAT UTE , TO HAVE THIS BE AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE II SECTION 7. THAT IS A STATEMENT OF POLICY. AND THE VOTER IS FR EE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WILL IMPROVE PARDO N ME.

ADDITIONALLY , THAT SECTION ALREADY SAYS THAT ITSHALL BE THE POLICY OF THESTATE TO CONS ERVE ANDPROTECT ITS NATURAL RESOURCES AND SCENIC BEAUTY, SO WHY IS I T NECESSARY TO HAVE SUCH A STATEMENT IN THIS SUMMARY ? YOU ARE PU TTING IT RI GHT IN THAT SECTION THAT ALREADYHAS THAT STATEMENT IN IT .

I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS ANYMORE NECESSARY TO PUTTHAT STATEMENT IN THERE THAN IT WAS IN THE PREGNANT P IGAMENDMENT , TO STATE, QUOTE, IN HU MANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IS A CONCERN TO FLORIDA CITIZENS. IT HAS BEEN DONE DIFFERENTWAYS, JUSTICE QUINCE. IN THE SECONDHAND SMOKE AMENDMENT

EXCUSE ME.THE DIFFER ENCE BET WEEN THE PREGNANT PI GS AMENDMENT AND THIS ONE, IS THIS ONE SE EM S TO CONC ERN A LOT MORE THAN JUST NATURAL RESO URCES AND S CENIC BEAUTY. IT INCL UDES THAT BUT IT DOESN'T INCL UDE ONLY THAT, WHEREAS THE PREG NANT PIGS AMENDMENT DID INCLUDE ONLY PREGNANT PIGS.

I REJECT THAT PROPOSITION.I THINK ANY LAND USEDECISION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AFFECTS THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND SCENIC BEAUTY OF THE STATE.

WE WOULD HAVE TO AGREE W ITH SUCH A B ROAD DEFINITION O F NATURAL RESOURCES AS YOUJUST PROPOSED, IN OR DER TO DETERMINE THAT IT IS NOT MISLEADING THEN.

IN THE MORMON CASE WHICH IS CITED IN MY BRIEF AND IN THE PROP ERTY RIGHTS TWO CASE, THE COURT HAS ALRE ADY STATED THAT. THIS IS NOT ANY K IN D OF A R ADICAL CHAN GE AS SUGGESTED BY THE OPPONENTS , TO INCREMENT A L .

WOULD YOU ADDRESS MR . RICHARD'S POINT ON THES INGLE SUBJECT. I SEE YOUR TIME , B UT I THINK I NEED THAT CLARIFICATION , WHICH IS , IF IT IS A LEGISLATIVE MANDATE , WILL THIS THWART LEGISLATIVE MANDATES TO PLAN SNAEMENTS.

CHIEF JUSTICE PAR IENTE , IF THE FLORIDA LEGISL ATURE WANTS TO AD OPT A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR TALLAHASSEE , IT HAS THE AUTH ORITY TO D O SO . C ITIES AND COUNTIES OP ERATE UNDER A DE LEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT THESE PLANS. IF THE LEGISLATURE DECIDESTHAT IT WANTS TO DO IT, OR IF IT AS IN THE CASE OF AN AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN, STATES THAT IT WANTS TO HAVE THE GOV ERNOR AND CABINET SETTING AS THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH A PLAN , IT WON'T AFFECT IT. THIS IS ONLY RE VISED WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MA KE SUCH A DECI SION.

YOU WOULD PUT IN THE CAVEAT, UNLESS IMPLEMENTING A LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT. ARE YOU SAYING THAT CA VEAT IS I AM POLICE PIT IN THERE?

ON IS IMPL ICIT IN THERE?

ON ITS FACE , YE S, YOUR H ONOR, ON ITS FACE IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE ADOPTION B Y A LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THAT IS A CITY OR A COUNTY. IF THE LEGISLATURE WA NTS TO MAKE THESE DECISION OR H AVE THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET MAKE THEM AS THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION , THERE WILL BE NO REFERENDUM , AND THAT IS CLEAR ON THEFACE OF THE AMEN DMENT.

WOULD YOU BR EAK THAT DOWN FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE LEGISLATURE WERE NOT MANDATING A SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN BUT HAD EN ACTED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ADDR ESS WHAT COUNTIES MAY OR MAY NOT DO , WITH RE GARD TO SOME PO RTIONS OF A LAND USE PLAN , WHAT