HEAR YE.HEAR YE.HEAR YE. THE SUPREME COURT OF THESTATE OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA , DRAW NEAR , GIVE ATTENTION AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES , THIS GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS HONORABLE COURT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. PLEASE BE S EATED.

CHIEF JUSTIC E: GOOD MORNING LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN.WELCOME TO THE FLORIDASUPREME COURT. THE FIRST CASE O N THIS MORNING'S DOCK ET IS THE ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENE RAL REGARDING THE AMENDMEN T TO THE L OCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.

LOUIS H U BENER W ITH THE ATTORNEY GENE RALS OFFICE THIS. CASE IS H ERE ON A REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OP INION . ROSS BURN HE MAN WILL AR GUE IN -- BU REMAN WILL AR GUE IN SOURPT AND TWO WILL ARGUE AGAINST. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I AM R OSS STAFFORD BURNEMAN , HERE ON BE HALF OF THE PROPONENT, FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY INCORPORATED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR , T HIS CAS E AND THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BEFORE US PREVIOUSLY. THE COURT STRUCK IT ONLY ON AN IS SUE OF THE BALLOT SUMMARY, AND IT APPEAR S THATYOU HAVE CORRECTED O R AT LEAST ADDRESSED THE ISSUE THAT THE COURT STRUCK IT ON , WHICH IS YOU REMOVED THAT SENTENCE .

YES, MA'AM. CHIEF JUSTICE. THE TEXT IS IDENTICAL TO THE TEXT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THIS COURT AND UNANIMOUSLY IT WAS F OUND COMPLIANT WITH THE SINGLE SUBJECT REQUIREMENT. SIMILARLY, THE T ITLE OF THE INITIATIVE THAT IS BEFORE YOU TO DAY , IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THAT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY. THE ONLY CH ANGE BETWEEN THE INITIATIVE THAT IS BEFORE THE COURT TODAY AND THAT WHICH WAS PREV IOUSLY CONSIDERED IN THE 2005 DECISION , IS THAT THE FI RS T SENTENCE OF THE BALLOT SUMMARY HAS BEEN REMOVED.

IF I A M A VOTER , TELL M E HOW I SHOU LD EXPECT THIS TO PRACTICALLY WORK.

IF THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED BY THE V OTERS , THEN THE SAME EX ACT PR OCESS WILL BE FO LLOWED THAT IS PRESENTLY THE CASE, AND THAT IS TYPICALLY , THE PLANNING STAFF OF THE C ITY OR COU NTY DEVELOPS PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE P LAN. THAT IS IN THE CASE OF A COMMUNITY , OF COURSE , THAT HAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RATHER THAN A NEWLY-FORMED COMMUNITY. THE , THERE IS A LOCAL PLANNING AGE NCY , WHICH CAN BE EITH ER THE CITY OR COUNTY COMMISSION OR IT CAN BE AN APPOINTED B OARD OF CITIZENS THAT REVIEWS, THEN , THE WORK PRODUCT OF THE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING STAFF AND DEVELOPS RECOMMENDATIONS IN A PROP OSAL FOR SUBMISSION TO THE LOCAL GO VERNING BODY,WHETHER IT BE THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE COUNTY COMMISSION. IN MOST INSTANCES, THAT IS OTHER THAN S MALL S CALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY CONSIDERSWHETHER OR NOT TO ADOPT ONE OR MORE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT AS THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED IN THE COAS TAL DEVELOPMENT CASE AND U . S. EMAN. THAT THEN GOES TO THE STATE FOR REVIEW AND THE STATE ISSUES A RE PORT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE AMENDMENTSHOULD BE ADO PTED WITH OR WITHOUT CHANGES ON OR NOT AT A LL, AND SI NCE THAT , THEN , -- AND SENDS THAT, THEN , BACK TO THE LOCALGOVERNMENT. THE LOCAL GOV ERNING BODY THEN HAS A SE COND ADOP TION HEARING , AND THAT IS TO EITHER DE CIDE WHETHER TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT AS , EXACTLY AS PROPOSED AND SENT TO THE STATE PREVIOUSLY, TO MAKE CHANGES TO IT OR NOT TO ADOPT IT AT A LL. THAT IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT. SHOULD THE LOCAL GOVE RNING B ODY DECIDE THAT THEY ARE NOT GO ING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE AMENDMENT, THEN THEY WOULD NOT PUT IT O N THE BALLOT . SHOULD THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY DECI DE THAT ONE O R MORE AMENDMENTS IS WORTHY OF ENACTMENT , THEN THEY WOULD T AKE ACTION TO PLA CE THE MATTER ON THE BALLOT , AND THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION A S TO HOW TO PACKAGE IT. THEY COULD EITHER PACKAGE THE AMENDMEN TS INDIVIDUALLY OR THEY COULD --

WOULD THERE BE ANYREQUIREMENT UNDER THIS AMENDMENT AS TO HOW FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE ELECTION IT HAS TO GO?

THE TEXAS THAT IS BEFORE -- THE TEXAS THAT THE IS BEFORE YOU JUS TICE -- THE TEXT THAT IS B EFORE YOU , JUSTICE WELLS , PRO VIDES THE N OTICE OF SUCH THI NGS, IN GENERAL LAW. REFERENDUM, THERE IS A SPECIFIC STATUTE ON THE NOTICING OF THAT. THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE LEGISLATURE IN TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION, BUT THERE IS AN EXIS TING PRO CESS FOR DOING THAT.

JUSTICE: IS THIS A SE LF ENACTING PROVISION, OR IS IT REQUIRED LEGISLATIVEADOPTION?

I DON'T BELIEVE IT REQUIRES ANY LEGI SLATIVE ADOPTION.

JUSTICE: WE LL, THEN , HOW DOES IT DETERMIN E HOW LONG BEFORE THERE HAS TO BE A CTION BY THE LEGISLATIVE PART OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT?

WELL , AG AI N , YOUR HO NOR , THE AMENDMENT IT SELF PRO VIDES THAT NOTICE SHALL BE AS PROV IDED B Y GENERAL LAW. THERE IS A EXISTING GENERALLAW ON THE BOOKS THAT DEALS WITH THAT. WE HAVE BEEN , OF COURSE, HAVING ELEC TIONS FOR A GOOD LONG WHILE IN FLORIDA , SO TO THAT END , SHOULD THE AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED BY THE E VENT LE CTOR TO FL ORIDA -- B Y THE ELECTORATE OF FLORIDA , THERE IS NO F URTHER LEGISLATIVE THAT IS REQ UIRED . NO FU RTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS REQU IRED OTHERTHAN THE STATUTES THAT AREON THE BOOKS AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING ELEC TIONS .

JUSTICE: IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE REMOVED SO ME OF THE OBJECTIONABLE PA RTS OF THIS . BUT THE OPPONENTS SEEM T O SUGGEST THERE HAS BEEN ACHANGE IN THE L AY OF THE LAND, SO THAT NOW I T D OES IMPACT OR CHANGE FU NCTIONS OF MUL TIPLE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND APPROACHES IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. COULD YOU TAKE PAR T OF YOUR T IME TO AT LEAST ADDRESSSOME OF THOSE SO YOU DO N'T RUN OUT OF TI ME? THAT SEEMS TO BE THE DIFFERENCE. IS THAT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THAT WE ARE PERCEIVING REALLY, SUBSTANTIVELY?

JUSTICE WELLS , WE HAVE REMOVED THE ENTIRETY OF THE F IRST SENT ENCE. THAT THE ONLY DE FECT THAT THE COURT F O UND. WE HAVEN'T REMOVED SOME OF I T. WE REMOVE D ALL OF IT .

JUSTICE: HOW A BOUT ADDRESSING THE --

YES, SI R. THE ONLY CHANGE THAT HAS OCCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE COURT'S PRIOR DECISION IS THIS EN ACTMENT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE PLANNING LAW , TO STRENGTHEN THE , WHAT IS C ALLED SCHO OL CONCURRENCY . THE OBJECTIVE OF SCHOOL CONCURRENCY IS T O MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT SCHOOLS IN PLACE BEFORE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS AUTHORIZED. THE CHANGES TO THE STATUTE , ALSO, PROVIDE FOR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY. AS POINTED OUT IN THE BRIEF, FIRST OF ALL A SCHOOL BOARD IS NOT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT , AND ARTICLE VI II OF THE CONSTITUTION RECOGNIZES THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF LOCALGOVERNMENT IN FLORIDA , COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES , SO LET'S PUT THAT TO REST. THE CHANGES TO THE STATUTE DON'T TURN A SCHOOL BOARD OR SCHOOL DIST RICT INTO A LOCALGOVERNMENT. SIMILARLY , THE STATUT ORY CHANGE DO ESN'T CHANGE THE BASIC PREDICATE FOR OURAMENDMENT , AND THAT IS THAT WE HAVE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS ADOPTED BY ALL OF FLORIDA'S CITIES AND COUNTIES PRESENTLY. AND THERE IS A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT THE SAME BE ENACTED . AND S O THESE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS THAT ARE ENVISIONED IN THE STATUTORY CHANGE , VIS-A-VIS THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR PURPOSES OF SCHOOL PLANNING AND CONCURRENCY , CALL FOR AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, BUT THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS NOT BY DEF INITION , A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND IN FA CT, THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZES THAT THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTBETWEEN THE SCHOOL BOAR D AND THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY HAS TO PROVIDE FOR AND PUT THE SCHOOL BOARD ON NOTI CE OF THE FACT THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETA INS THE AUTHORITY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT T O APPROVE OR TO DE NY AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVEPLAN FOR PURPOSES OF SIGHTING A SCHOOL. ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE LEGISLATION IS THAT IT RECOGN IZES THAT ANY EXISTING LAND LAND , ANY EXI STING SCHOOL SITE IS ALREADY ESSENTIALLY GRANDFATHERED IN FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF SCHOOLS , SO THAT IF YOU AL READY HAVE LAND THAT IS OWNED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD WHERE THERE I S A SCHOOL , THEN YOU CAN ADD ON IT IT. YOU CAN PUT A 100 STORY SCHOOL THERE, AS FAR AS I READ THE STATUTE , SO I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY MERITTO THE VIEW THAT THE SIMPLE CHANGE TO THE STATUTE IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE TO WARRANT THIS COURT , THEN , GOING BACK AND EVALUATING WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A SINGLE SUB JECT VIOLATION. IF YOU LOOK TO THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ALLEGEDLY IMPLEMENTED BY THE SCHOOL CON SKURNS I LEGISLATION -- CONCURRENCY LEGISLATION , ARTICLE II SECTION 7, OBVIOUSLY, WH ICH REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE LAND USE PLANS TO PROTECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND S C ENIC BEAUTY OF THE STATE, BUT ALSO THE PROVIS IONS REGARDING SCHOOL BOARDS , PARTICULARLY THE C LASS SIZE AMENDMENT , THERE IS SIMPLY NO JURISPRUDENTIAL BA SIS FOR S AYING THAT THE CL ASS SIZE REQUIREMENT BE CONSTRUCTED. IN FACT, IN PA SSING O N THE SINGLE SUBJECT REVIEW OF THE C LASS SIZE AMENDMENT , THE COURT SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED THAT, AND I HAVE CITED THAT IN MY BRIEF TO YOU , SO TU RNING TO THE BALLOT TI TLE AND SU MMARY , THE WORD LIMI TATIONS ARE BOTH SATISFIED , 15 AND 7 5 RESPECTIVELY. THE COURT 'S PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED THAT THE BALLOT TITLE FAIRLY INFORMS THE VOTERS, AND THE COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THEAMENDMENT. AND SO THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE TO THAT , SO WE WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COURT TO ISSUE AN AD VISORY OPINION ALLOWING US TO PRO CEED TOWARD THE BALL OT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION .

CHIEF JUSTICE: MS. O'HARA.

MA Y IT PLEASE THE COURT. I AM REBECCA O' HARA ON BEHALF OF THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES , AND WITH ME AT THE COUN SEL TABLE IS ROBERT NABORS ON BE HALF OF THE FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION.I WOULD LIKE TO RES ERVE TEN MINUTES OF MY TIME FOR VIRGINIA DELEGOTT TO PRES ENT ON COMPLI ANCE OF THE FLORIDASTATUTES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WE WILL ASK YOU TO KEEP TRACK OF YOUR TIME BUT I WILL AL ERT YOU IN THE MIDDLE.

THANK YOU . THE INIT IATIVE VIOLATES THE SINGLE SUBJECT FOR AT LEAST THREE REAS ONS. F IRST IT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER S THE FU NCTIONS OF MULTIPLE BRANCHES OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE ADEQUACY REQUIREMENT OF ARTI CLE IX SECTION 1. SECONDLY IT ALTERS THE FUNCTIONS OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO CONSTRUCT AND PLAN FOR NEW PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THIRDLY IT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS MULTIPLE L E VELS AND FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY REQUIRING REFERENDA ON LEGISLATIVE AND FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL DECI SION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUST SO I UNDERSTAND AS WE DID LAST TIME THAT , THE PROPONENTS SAY THAT , WHAT THISAMENDMENT DOES IS IT SIMPLY INJECTS AN ADDITIONAL STEP BEFORE AN AMENDMENT TO A L OCAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USEPLAN CAN BE ADOPTED , W HICH IS THAT THE VOTER S NE ED TO M AKE THAT DECISION. IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THAT NOT WHAT, ALTHOUGH WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL OF THESE OTHER POTENTIAL E FFECTS ON IT , AS WE CAN POINT OUT THERE IS ALR EADY A COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS AND AGOAL IN T HIS STATE TO PREVENT LAND FROM BEING DEVELOPED THAT W A SN'T SUPPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED OR REZONING, SO WHAT IS IT A BOUT, WHAT IS IT ABOUT THAT WHICH IS THAT , WHICH IS PUTTING AN EX TRA STREP STEP THAT HAS ALL OF THIS -- AN EXTRA STEP THAT HAS ALL OF THIS CATACLYSMIC EF FECT ON EVERYTHING ELSE?

IT IS THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT STEP THAT IS SIGNIFICANT FOR THIS COURT'S REVIEW, SIMILAR TO THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED REFERENDA ON MILLAGE INCREASES THAT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE PROP ERTY RIGHTS CASE AS WELL AS THE T AX LIMI TATIONS CASE. THE POTE NTIAL FOR VOTERS TO REJECT A PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT THAT IS NE CESSARY TO IM PLEMENT SCHOOL CONCURRENCY WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY LIMIT THE STATE'S DISCRETION IN HOW IT HAS CH OSEN TO COMPLY WITH THE ADE QUACY REQUIREMENTS AND THE PARAMOUNT D UTIES UNDER ARTICLE IX S E CTION 1 , SO IT IS THIS CONSEQUENCE OF THE ACTION THAT IS REQUIRED . THE CONSEQ UENCE OF A REFERENDUM THAT IS SIGNIFICANT AND THAT WILL IMPACT THESE MULT IPLE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.

ON THAT BASIS, IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT WE ACTUALLY J UST THEN REC EDE OR REV ERSE THE VIEW OF THE COURT FROM BEFORE. CORRECT?AS FAR AS YOUR F IRST PO INT.

WELL , AS FA R AS , Y ES .

THE ONLY NEW THING THAT SEEMS TO BE ON THE HORIZON IS THIS THE ISSUE OF THIS BEING REASSERTED WITH RE GARD TO SCHOOL BOARDS , IT NOT?

YES , JUSTICE LE WI S , THE ISSUE IS WITH THE PAS SAGE OF 2005 290 LAWS OF FLORIDA LAST YEA R, FOR THE FIRST TIME SCHOOL CONC URRENCY WAS IMP OSED, MAP DATE ODD A STATEWIDE -- MANDATED ON A STATEWIDE BASIS. IT PREVIOUSLY WAS OPTIONAL AND IN FACT HAD ONLY BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN ONE COUNTY OF THIS STATE BEFORE. THIS HIGHLIGHTS AND UNDERSCORES THE IMP ACT OF THIS AMENDMENT ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS , ON LOCALGOVERNMENTS , AND ON THE STATE WITH RESPECT TO ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES .

JUSTICE: WELL, THE STATUTE CURRENTLY ALLOWS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS T O TAKE THIS TO REFERENDUM , IF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT W OULD AFFECT MORE THAN , I THINK , FIVE PARCELS ? SO IT ALRE ADY KNOWS, EVEN WITH THIS CONCURRENCY , WITH THIS NEW REQUIREMENT, THERE ALREADY IS THE AB ILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE THIS TO REFERENDUM , SO ALL THIS DOES IS SAY, WELL , EVEN I F IT IS FIVE OR F EWER PARCELS , YOU STILL HAVE TO GO TO A REFERENDUM. SO HOW DOES THIS CATACLYSMIC CHANGE I N THE RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THEBRANCHES?

JUSTICE CANTERO , THE EXI STING REQUIREMENT IN CHAPTER 1 63 , ACTU ALLY IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. IT IS ACTUALLY COU CHED IN PARTICULAR LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT THE ABI LITY TO REQUIRE A REFERENDUM BY LOCAL OPTION IS NOT PROHIBITED , BUT IT CERTAINLY ISN'T A REQUIREMENT OF C URRENT LAW THAT A REFERENDUM BE H ELD IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , AND IN FACT , IT WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT AND CONSIDERED WHEN THE LEGISLATURE WAS IMPLEMENTING THESE NEW CONCUR RENCY REQUIREMENTS IN LAW . IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT PROVISION HAS BEEN IN THE LAW R IGHT AROUND THE TIME WHERE THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHETHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, THEMSELVES , WERE LEGISLATIVE OR WERE QUASI-JUDICIAL, AND SOME BELIEVE AT THE TIME , THERE WAS GOING TO BE A DIS TINCTION MADE AS TO THE SIZE OF THE PARC EL THAT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION.

I AM STILL HA VING TROUBLE WITH THIS . YOU SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT , IF THE SCHOOL, THE ISSUE OF BUILDING A SCHOOL IS THE F ACTOR IN SEEKING A PLAN AMENDMENT , AND IT COULD BE A SCHOOL, THEY DECI DE WE AREGOING TO PUT SCHOOL RIGHT ON THIS BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF WATERFRONT PROPERTY. THAT IS WHERE WE AREDECIDING TO DO IT , AND THESTATE APPROVES IT . THAT, BY PUTTING THAT TO THE VOTERS , THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERING WITH ANOT HER B RANCH OF GOVERNMENT. AND I AM STILL HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING SINCE THERE IS LOTS OF CHOICES ABOUT WHER E YOU CAN BU ILD SCHOOLS , AS WAS APPOINTED O UT. YOU CAN EXPAND ON THE EXISTING SCHOOL THAT EX ISTS, AND IT MAY NOT EVEN BE THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU NEED TO BUILD ADDITI ONAL SCHOOLS. HOW DOES THAT INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY , WITH ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ? YOU JUST HAVE TO HELP ME WITH THAT BECAUSE I AM JUST NOT SEEING IT .

YES. CHIEF JUSTICE , IT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE ABILITYOF A SCHOOL BOARD TO SITE AND LOCA TE A NEW PUBLIC SCHOOL, BECAUSE THE NE ED FOR NEW PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS NOT REALLY A QUE STION OF IF BUT OF WHEN IN THIS STATE. W E ARE A GROWING STATE, ANDTHE PUBLIC SCHOOL, THE NEED FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAN 'T BE SATISFIED SIMPLY BY RELYINGON EXISTING FACI LITIES , AND IN FACT , IN COUNTIES THAT ARE MORE BUI LT OUT THAN OTHERS , Y OUR CHOICE IN WHERE TO PUT SCHOOLS IS PRE TTY SEVERELY LIMITED , SO IF A SCHOOL BOARD HAS DECIDED THAT IT NEEDS TO PUT A SCHOOL IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE DEMANDS CAUSED BY THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THAT ARE A AND THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CHOICE IN WHERE THAT SCHOOL GO ES, THE ABIL ITY OF VOTERS THROUGH A REFERE NDUM , TO REJECT THAT PROPOSED SITE WILL AFFECT THE SCHOOL BOARD'S ABILITY .

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THESTATE COULD RE JECT IT BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE OVERALL PLAN? THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT E NTITY COULD REJECT IT. THE SCHOOL BOARD DOESN'THAVE AN ABSO LUTE RIGHT UNDER ANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS , TO JUST BUILD A SCHOOL WHEREVER THEY DECIDE IT IS NECESSARY TO BUILD ONE. YOU STILL HAVE THESE STEPS, AND ALL THIS AMENDMENT IS DOING IS PUT AGO ADDI TIONAL STEP, A CHECK ON THE ABILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO JUST BUILD WHEREVER THEY DECIDE ON A GIVEN DATE.

CHIEF JUSTICE , THERE ARE ACTUALLY SOME SAFEGUARDS IN CURRENT LAW TO PREVENT THE CONFLICTS THAT YOU DESCRIBE . THERE ARE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND SCHOOL BOARDS. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS, ABUNCH OF REQUIREMENTS ON THE FRONT END , TO COORDINATE THE SITING AND LOCATION OF P UBLIC SCHOOL FACIL ITIES. ALL OF THESE THING RESPECT DESIGNED TO AV OID THE V ERY CONFLICT THAT YOU DESC RIBE, SO THAT THE I DE A THAT SOMETHING COULD BE REJE CTED B Y THE STATE IS EXTREMELY MIN IMAL AT THAT POINT . ALL OF THAT WOULD GO OUT THE WINDOW, I F REFERENDA WERE REQUIRED, BECA USE THE VOTERS DON'T HAVE TO CONSIDER ALLOF THE F R ONT END PREPARATION AND COORDINATION THAT WERE TO GO INTO EFFECT, AND IN FACT THERE IS NO SAF ETY V ALVE TO PREVENT VOTERS FROMHE HAVE SECRETARYING ENTIRELY, THE LOCATION OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL IN THEIR JURISDICTION .

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE QUINCE HAS A QUESTION.

JUSTICE: I AM STILLCONCERNED ABOUT THE QUESTION THAT JUSTICE CANTERO ASKED. I REALLY WASN'T WIDE SATISFIED WITH YOUR ANSWER. THAT IS IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHOOSES, UNDER PRESENT LAW , TO HAVE A REFERENDUM , THEY COULD HAVE IT EVERY TIME THERE IS A PARCEL, A SITUATION THAT IS OVER FIVE PARCELS , SO HOW , REALLY, DOES THIS SUBSTANTIALLY D IFFER FROM THAT? NOW THEY ARE SIMPLY REQUIRED TO DO IT , WHEREAS BE FORE THEY HAD THE OPTION OF DOING IT OR NOT DOING IT. SO I AM STILL HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING HOW THIS AMENDMENT REALLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGES WHAT IS ALRE ADY IN PRESENT LAW . EXCEPT NO W YOU HAVE TO DO IT AS OP POSED TO HAVING THE OPTION.

JUSTICE WINS , THE REQUIREMENT IN LAW TO DAY THAT YOU ARE DESC RIBING DOESN'T IMPACT THE FACT THAT THE SINGLE SUBJECT HAS INITIATIVE PROBLEMS. THE FACT THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY ITS OPTION, A MEND ITS CHARTTORY PROVIDE FOR A REFERENDUM FOR CERTAIN COMPRE HENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, THAT , IF THAT IS DONE, THEN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THAT AMENDMENT TO THAT CHARTER , WOULD BE S UBJECT TO THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS , SIM ILAR CONSIDERATIONS AS THE INITIATIVE BEFORE YOU. BUT, AGAI N, THE FACT THAT EXISTS --

JUSTICE: YOU ARE SA YING E VEN IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHOOSES THAT OPTION THAT YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHERE , IT WOULD STILL CONFLICT WITH HOW SCHOOLS WOULD BE BUILT AND WHETHEROR NOT THE SCHOOL BOARDS WOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF PUTTING SCHOOLS IN PARTICULAR AREAS?

NO. JUSTICE QU INCE , WE BE LIEVE THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO PROBABLY DESCRIBE WITH MORE PARTICULARITY , THE PARAMETERS AND PROVIDE SOME SAFEGUARDS, IF THEY CHOSE TO GO THAT ROUTE. I STHEE MY TIME IS UP AND I AM GOING TO TURN TO MY CO-COUNSEL. THANK YOU.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS VIRGINIA DELEGAL, AND I AM HERE FOR FLORIDA COUNTIES IN THE IN ITIATIVE PROPOSED TO YOU. THIS IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND ADOPTION PRO CESS. RATHER IT ALTERS ONE OF THE MOST EXPANSIVE FUNCTIONS IN GOVERNMENT, HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY BALANCES THE GOVERNMENT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS.

HAVEN'T WE ALREADY ANSWERED THOSE QUES TIONS? ISN'T THE ONLY CHANGE THE SCHOOL BOARD ISSUE?

I WOULD AGREE JUSTICE LEWIS , THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD ISSUE --

JUSTICE: WE WOULD HAVE TO RECEDE FROM THE PR IOR OPINION TO SAT ISFY YOUR ARGUMENT. THAT IS CORRECT?

YOU WOULD , EXCEPT THAT WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT THE CHIEF PURPOSE THAT WAS IDENTIFYED BY THIS COURT IN ITS FIRST OP INION ON THIS AMENDMENT DID NOT EXAMINE THE FULL SCOPE OF THEAMENDMENT ITSELF , AND THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT IS ACTUALLY PRESENTED TO THE VOTER IN THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY , ALSO DOES NOT ACCURATELY REF LECT THE FULL SCOPE OF THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE. THAT A REFERENDUM REQUIREMENT DOES ALTER THE BALANCE OF ALL OF THE INTEREST THAT IS HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROC ESS , FROM THE STATE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LOCAL LEVEL , BALANCING PRI VATE PROP ERTY INTERESTS , BAL ANCING GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS, BALANCING THE SCHOOL BOARD INTERESTS AND THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS AS WELL , THAT THAT SCOPE IS NOT GIVEN TO THE VOTER IN THE LANGUAGE THAT IS PRES ENTED IN THE BAL LOT TITLE AND SUMMARY.

BUT IS THIS AMENDMENT REALLY ADDING IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE HERE ?

THAT IS WHAT --

JUSTICE QUINCY AGR EE . IN THE AMENDMENT PROCESS. THE PROBLEM WITH THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMM ARY IS IT DOE SN'T GIVE THE VOTER IN ENOUGH INFOR MATION TO VOTEON WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON. THESE ARE LEGAL T ERMS. LOCAL GOVERNMENT. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN .

JUSTICE: AREN'T THESEWORDS ALREADY IN COMMON USAGE WITH RE GARD TO THE CURRENT STATUTORY SCHEME? IT IS NOT CREATING ANYTHING , IS IT?

I AGREE , JUSTICE LE WIS. THE PROBLEM IS THE DEFINITION IN CHA PTER 163 IS OF COMPREHE NSIVE PLAN. THE DEFINITION THAT? THE AMENDMENT TE XT ITSE LF , IS MU CH, MUCH BROADER THAN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION, SO IF A VOTER HAS ANY IDEA AT ALL ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ARE BEING PRESENTED TO VOTE UPON , THE DEFINITION IN THE AMENDMENT TEXT ITSELF IS DIFFERENT THAN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION, AND IN FACT IT IS MUCH B ROADER . IT IS DEFINED TO MEAN --

J USTICE: THERE IS N O CHANGE IN THIS PROPOSAL FROM BEFORE WITH REGARD TO THAT ASPECT. CORRECT?

NO , JUSTICE LEWIS . THAT PART DID NOT CHANGE BUT JUST ONE OFFENDING SE NTENCE WAS REMOVED, IT DID NOT C URE THE REMAINING DEFECTS THAT STILL STA YED WITH THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: LET ME MAKE SU RE. THE DEFECT S THAT YOU SAY EXIST, BUT THE COURT POINTED OUT ONE DEFECT INDICATING THEREFORE, THAT THERE WERE NO OTHER DEFECTS. NOW , IF WE GOT IT W RONG WHEN WE SAID THAT WHAT IT DOES IS ADDS A , ALTERS ONLY ONE STE P IN AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED PROCESS , YOU ARE, AGAIN , ASKING US TO REC EDE FROM OUR PRIOR OPI NION , BASICALLY SAYING WE DIDN'T REALLY GETTHE FULL SCOPE OF THIS AMENDMENT BY SAYING IT IS ONLY ONE STEP.

YES , MADAM CHIEF JUSTICE , AND WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT LAST YEAR'S CHANGE IN THE STATUTORY SCHEME FOR THE GROWTH MANA GEMENT LAWS BRINGS TO LIGHT THE SCOP E OF THE CHANGE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT IS BEING PUT BEFORE THE VOTERS. IF A VOTER HAS ANY IDEA AT ALL FROM WHAT IS BEING P LACED IN FRONT OF THEM OF WHAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN IS, ONE OF THE ADJECTIVES THAT IS IN THERE IS LAND USE, BUT, AGAI N, THAT IS A TERM OF ART THAT A VOTER MIGHT ASSUME IF THEY KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS , THAT IT IS SIMPLY THE F U TURE LAND USE ELEMENT, WHICH IS JUST ONE PIECE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS . O RANGE COU NTY HAS O VER 19 ELEMENTS IN ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT YOUARE SAYING , WHICH I THI NK WAS PART AND PARCEL LAST TIME, IS THAT A LOT OF ISSUES MAKE COME BEFO RE THE VOTERS THAT THE VOTERS REALLY DON'T CARE TO VOTE ON , BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT REALLY ALTERING THE USE OF LAND , BUT THAT IS THE FACT THAT THERE MAY B E MORE REFERENDA ON A BALLOT , ISN'T REALLY SOMETHING , I ME AN, I AM NOT SURE , SHOULD THAT BE SET FORTH IN THE BALLOT SUMMAR Y? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? WASN'T THAT AR GUMENT MADE LAST TIME?

MADAM CHIEF JUSTICE , I THINK I AM ASSERTING THAT WHAT IS PRESENTED TO THE VOTER IN THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY , IS INSUFFICIENT IN PROV IDING ANYT HING MEANINGFUL TO THE VOTER ASTO WHAT IT IS THEY ARE BEING GIVEN THE RIGHT IN THE F UTURE TO VOTE ON , BECAUSETHESE ARE TERMS OF ART THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED TO THE VOTER IN THE BALLOT BO X, WITHOUT DEFINITIONS, AND IF THEY ACTU ALLY LOOK AT THE TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT ITSELF, THE FACT THAT THOSE DEFINITIONS CONFLICT WITH CURRENT LAW , DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY AN SWERS FOR THE VOTER, WHEN THEY ARE IN THE VOTING BOOTH , A BOUT WHAT THEY ARE B EING GIVEN THE RIGHT T O VOTE UPON IN THE FUTURE .

BUT AREN 'T THERE LIMITATIONS AS TO THE SUMMARY AND TO THE WORDSTHAT CAN BE USED , AND YOU ARE MENTIONING THATING THERE IS 1 9 DI FFERENT FUNCTIONS, IF ONE ATTEMPTED TO DEFINE 19 FUNCTIONS , HO W ARE THEY GOING TO MEET THE WORD LIMITATIONS FOR BO TH THE BALLOT SUMMARY AND THETITLE? Y OU ARE ASKI NG THAT THIS WHOLE THING BE OUTLINED. I SUP POSE THAT IF THE LEGISLATURE PROVIDED , THEY COULD PUT THE WHOLE THIN G ON THE BALLOT , ARE YOU BU AREN'T YOU ASKING FORSOMETHING THAT REALLY IS NOT ATTAINABLE IN A SUMMARYFASHION?

JUSTICE LEWIS THAT , MIGHT BE THE CASE. HOWEVER , THE SPONSORS N E EDTO BRING FORWARD TO THE VOTER, WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING THAT THE VOTER H AVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON IN THE FUTURE. IF IT I S THE LAND USE COMPREHENSIVE, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAND USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ISIN THE TEXT AMENDMENT ITSELF, THAT IS A DIF FERENT PLAN THAN WHAT EX IST INS CURRENT LAW, AND THE VOTER DOESN'THAVE ANY WAY OF K NOWING WHICH PLAN I T IS. OUR BRIEF POINTED OUT THAT THE DEFINITION IN THE AMENDMENT TEXT COULD ACTUALLY INCL UDE A S MANY AS 16 OT HER STATUTOR ILY RECOGNIZED PLAN S THAT ARE --

CHIEF JUSTICE: DIDN'T WE ADD RESS THAT, WHEN WE SAID THAT AT LE AST THE MAJORITY , THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE BALLOT SUMMARY WAS MISLEADING BECAUSE IT FOCUSED THE VOTER ON SC ENIC BEAUTY AND NATURAL RESOURCES WHILE LOCAL COMPREHE NSIVE PLANS INCLUDE MULTIPLE COMPONENTS, MANY OF WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE STRICTLY ENVIRONMENTAL OR AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS, AND THEN WE WENT ON TO ALL THE DIFF ERENT THINGS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT , AND SO I AM NOT, AGAIN , SURE IF YOU ARE SAYING VOTERS REALLY , WHAT THE ARGUMENT SHOULD BE , YOU ARE REALLY NOT GOING TO WANT TO VOTE ON THIS BECAU SETHERE IS A LOT O F BO RING THINGS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT YOU COULDN'T CARE LESS AB OUT. BUT,000 HOW IS THAT -- BUT HOW IS THAT MISLEADING ?

IT IS MISLEADING , MADAM CHIEF JUSTICE , BECAUSE THE VOTER DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF THEM IN THE BALLOT BOX THAT TE LLS THEM THE LIMITS OR THE SCOPE OF WHAT THIS THING IS THAT IS IN THE AMENDMENT. WHAT IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN? THAT IS A TERM OF ART , AND THERE ARE NO DEFINITIONS THAT ARE GIV EN TO THE VOTER , WHEN THEY ARE IN THE BALLOT BOX .

JUSTICE: BUT ISN'T THAT THE SAME THING YOU COULD SAY , A LOT OF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE MULTIPAGE AMENDMENTS, AND YOU CANNOT , IN 7 5 WORDS , PUT EVERYTHING IN THAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT? AND SO ISN'T THAT THE P URPOSE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION THAT GOES ON PRIOR T O PEOPLE VOTING ON THESE AMENDMENTS? THAT IS THE PU RPOSE OF THE PROPONENTS AND THE OPPONENTS DISCUSSING THIS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION DAY.

JUSTICE QUINCE , I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU EXCEPT THAT THIS COURT , IN TERM LIM ITS PLEDGE, HAS ALREADY SAID THAT, WHEN THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARYTHAT IS PRESENTED TO THE VOTER , DOES NOT CLEARLY ARTICULATE THE FULL SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENT THAT IS BEING VOTED UPON, THEN THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY MUST FAIL.

JUSTICE: HAVEN'T WE ALSO SAID THAT THESE SUMMAR IES CANNOT INCLUDE EVERY RAMIFICATION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT?

YES, MA'AM. THE PROBLEM WITH THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY IN THIS CASE IS THAT IT TEL LS THE VOTER NOTHING THAT IS MEANINGFUL. THESE ARE TERM S OF AR T. THESE ARE TECHNICAL LEGAL TERMS , AND THERE ARE N O DEFINITIONS PROVIDED , AND THIS COURT HAS O N MANY INDICATIONS WHEN TERMS OF ART OR OTHER LEGAL TECHNICAL TERMS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE VOTER WITHOUT DEFINITION , WITHOUT GUID ANCE , WITHOUTGIVING THE VOTER ANYTHING MEANINGFUL TO PLACE A VOTE ON, HAS STRUCK THOSE FROM THE BALLOT, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TELL THE VOTER WHAT IT IS THAT THE AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO DO, AND THAT IS PRECISELY THEPROBLEM IN THIS CASE. THE, WHILE THE FIRSTSENTENCE WAS ACTUALLY REMOVED , SINCE THIS COURT ISSUED ITS FIRST ADVISORY OPINION, THIS AMENDMENT IS STILL IN THE NATURAL RESOURCES SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND SO IF A VOTER , AGAIN , H AS ANY IDEA THAT LAND USE MI GHT BE INVOLVED OR THAT NA TURAL RES OURCES MIGH T BE INVOLVED , THOSE IT EMS ARE NOT INFORMATIVE TO THE VOTER AND ACTUALLY MISLEAD THE VOTER AND DI VERT THEIR ATTENTIONAWAY FROM THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT.THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU. REBUTTAL.

JUST VERY BRIE FLY B Y WAY OF RE BUTTAL . THE PROP ERTY R IGHTS CASE C ITED, IN THE FLORIDA HO PE T OWN DEMOCRACY OPINION ONE , SPECIFICALLY NOT ICED THAT,QUOTE , THE LEGISLATURE IS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE II SECTION 7 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, T O REG ULATE THE USE OF LAND TO PROTECT FLORIDA'S NAT URAL BE AUTY AND SCENIC RESO URCES , , NATURAL RESOURCES AND SCENIC BEAUTY. PAR DON ME. I AM NOT QUITE SURE HOW THE ARGUMENT GOES THAT VOTERS WOULD BE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE ARTI CLE I I SECTION 7 ON THE BOOKS. WE HAVE A LONG ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT FROM THIS COURT , RECOGNIZING THAT THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION REQUIRES THE LEGISLATURE TO HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING . NOW --

YOUR OPPONENTS SAY THAT THE DEFINITION IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS BROADER THAN THE DEFINITION IN THE STATUTES.IS THAT TRUE, NUMBER ONE , AND DID WE SPECIFICALLY SAYANYTHING IN OUR PRIOR OPINION ABOUT THE DIFFERING DEFINITIONS?

WELL , JUSTICE CANTERO , THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE DEFINITION IN CHA PTER 1 63 OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , AND I BELIEVE JUSTICE WELLS AS KE D ME ABOUT THAT D URING THE ORAL ARGU MENT IN THE PREVIOUS INITIATIVE . THERE IS A DEFINITION THAT REFERS ONE TO T WO STATUTORY SECTIONS THAT ARE , I DON'T KNOW , 20 OR 25 PA GE S LONG. I BE LIEVE THAT THE DEFINITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENS IVE LAND USE PLAN IN OUR INITIATIVE IS SOMETHING THAT E VERY VOTER IN FL ORIDA CAN UNDERSTAND. AS YOU RE CALL IN OUR PRIORBRIEF , I C ITED TO NUMEROUS LEGISLATIVE APPALACHIANS OF DIFFERENT -- APPELATIONS OF DIFFERENT PLANS AND THE WAYTHEY HAVE BEEN CHARACTERIZED. I ALSO CI TED TO A PLETHORA OF APPELLATE DEC ISIONS FROM FLORIDA COURTS , WHICH DIDN'T USE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEY USED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO JUST AS THE OPPO NENTS WOULD HAVE THE COURT BEL IEVE THAT VOTERS DON'T KNOW WHAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS , T HEY WOULD LIKE TO TR Y TO HAVE THE COURT NI BBLE ON THE BAIT THAT VOTERS DON'T KNOW WHAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN IS. THEY ARE FREQUENTLY IN THE NEWSPAPER.I THINK EVERY CITIZEN IN FLORIDA HAS A GO OD IDEA ABOUT WHAT THOSE ARE.

YOU THINK THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN THAT IS NOTINVOLVED IN ZONING ISSUES KNOWS THE DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND A Z ONING CODE ?

I BELIEVE THAT THE COURT HAS PREVIO USLY SAID THAT VOTERS ARE REQUIR ED TO HAVE A F AIR AM OUNT OF WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE LA WS OF THE STATE , AND SO JUSTICE CANTERO , I DO BELIEVE THAT MOST CITIZENS UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION BET WEEN --

JUSTICE: I THINK THECOURT ACTUALLY SAID THAT VOTERS ARE ASSUMED R ATHER THAN REQUIRED.

THE OPPONENTS WOULD HAVE THE COURT I MPOSE A DIE COT M ILE BETWEEN - - A DICHOTOMY BETWEEN THE CITIZE NS OF THE STATE AND THE ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNING BO DIES N ARTICLE I SECTION ONE IT RECOGNIZES THAT ALL POLITICAL PO WER I S INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. THE COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED , JUSTICE CANT ERO YOU RECO GNIZED THAT THERE IS A EXIS TING STATUTORY PROVISION DE ALING WITH FIVE OR M ORE PARCELS OF LAND THAT ALLOWS FOR REFERENDA , SO WE ARE ONLY PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY ADDING ONE INCREMENT AL STEP AT THE E ND , AND THAT I S A VOTER REF PREPARED YOU ME AN. WE HAVE - - REF END YOU MEA N. WE HAVE FULLY -- REFERENDUM . WE HAVE FULLY COMP LIED WITH THE SI NGLE SUB JECT AND BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARYREQUIREMENT.WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE FOR PLACEMENT ON THE BALLOT. UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I WOULD YIELD.

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUST ONLY, THE QUESTION IS , JUST TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THE EFFECT, LAST TIME WHEN WE STRUCK IT, WE SAID THAT IF IT , THE AMENDMENT WERE ADOPTED , THERE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF REFERENDA EACH Y EAR INVOLVING ISSUES OTHER THAN SCENE -- SCENIC BEAUTY OR NATURAL RESOURCES. GOING THROUGH ALL OF THESEOTHER AREAS THAT MIGHT NOT BE THOUGHT OF BY THE PUBL ICAS BEING PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN , DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT , THAT IS THAT THE E FFECT WILL BE, IF IT I S ADOPTED BY THE VOTERS, THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO BE VOTING ON A LOT O F CHANGES THAT MIGHT NOT B E , AGAIN , OTHER THAN NATURAL BEAUTY AND SCENIC RESOURCES.

NO W YOU ARE REPEATING M Y CONFUSION , CHIEF JUSTICE PARIENTE I. NO. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. WHAT ARE NATURAL RESOURCES? AIR? WATER? LAND? WHAT POSS IBLY COULD WE D O IN OUR COMMUNITIES, TO BU ILD SOMETHING OR DEVELOPSOMETHING THAT DIDN'T AFFECT A NATURAL RESOURCE OF THE STATE?

CHIEF JUSTICE: IUNDERSTAND. IT IS GOING , BUT MY QUESTION IS THEY WILL HAVE TO BE VOT ING ON THINGS THAT MIGHT BE SEEN AS MUCH MORE ATTENUATE ED EF FECT ON THE SCENIC BEAUTY AND NATURAL RESOURCES , AND THAT THIS WILL REQUIRE A LOT O F REFERENDA EACH YEAR, AND THAT IS EITHER GOOD OR BAD BUT IS THAT CORRECT?

WELL , I DON'T KNOW IF ITWILL REQUIRE A LOT OF REFERENDA OR NOT. WHEN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT WAS PROPOSED IN 1985 , THAT IS THE MAJOR RE VISIONS , THE DRAFTER S ENVISIONED ONE CHANGE PER YEAR EX CEPT FOR EMERGENCIES OR FORDEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT. IT IS ONLY SINCE 1985 THAT THE ACT HAS BEEN DI LUTED TO PROVIDE FOR A NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE TWICE A YEAR LIMIT THAT THE LEGISLATURE ENDED UP WITH IN 1985, SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE FEWER AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN , IF IT HAS TO GO T O THE BALLOT, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT JUST CA LLS FOR SPEC ULATION . THE FUNDAMENTAL PART IS THAT THE COURT --

CHIEF JUSTICE: THE GOAL IS BY HAVING THIS, TO GO BEFORE THE VOTERS, THE HOPE IS THAT THERE WILL BE LESS LIKELIHOOD OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BASICALLY TINKERING WITH THE LAND USE PLAN? I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND, SO WE , THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE A PART OF THE CAMPAIGN , BUT JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND.

WELL , THE PREMISE IS THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS BENEFITS THE STAT E. THAT BY HAVING MORE CITIZENS UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LONG-TERM FUTURE PLAN FOR THEIR CITY O R COUNTY IS , THAT THEY WILL BE MORE INFORMED AND THAT THEY WILL BE MORE ENGA GED IN ACTING TO PROTECT THEIR COMMUNITIES. SO THAT IS THE PREM ISE , AND I UNDERSTAND THE COURT STRUCK THE LANGUAGE IN THE BALLOT SUMMARY PREVIOUSLY , A BOUT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BENEFITTING THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND SCENIC BEAUTY, BUT THAT STILL IS IN THE TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT AS THE PREDICATE, IF YOU WILL , FORHAVING THE REFERENDUM REQUIREMENT, AND THE VOTER CAN EITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT PROPOSITION. I THINK IT IS SELF-EVI DENT , BUT WE WILL LET THE OPPONENTS IN THE , S HOULD APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AND WE WILL LET THEM HASH THAT OUT, BUT THE COURT DID RECOGNIZE IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS CASE , THAT ARTICLE II SECTION 7 REQUIRES IN ESSENCE , THAT WE HAVE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS , SO THE , NOT ONLY ARE THE OPPONENTS AS KING THE COURT TO RECEDE FROM THE PRIOR HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY OPINION , BUT THEY ARE ALSO ASKING YOU TO RECEDE FROM THE PROPERTY RI GHTS DECISION , AND ONE LAST POINT AND I WILL SIT DO WN. THAT IS THAT THE OPPONENTS S AY THAT THE , JUSTICE LE WI S , THAT THE COURT GOT I T W RONG LAST TI ME. WELL , WE HAVE ASKED FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE BRIEFS THAT WERE FILED BY THE LE AGUE OF CITIES AND BY THE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES , AND I WOULD COMMEND TO YOU THAT THEY GOT IT WRONG, TOO , APPARENTLY, BECAUSE THEY STATED WHAT THE CHIEFPURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT WAS IN