Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General: Land-Use Plans (Fiscal Impact Statement)

SC06-521

>> ALL RISE.
HEAR YEA HEAR YEA HEAR YEA, THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW
IN SERVINGS ALTHOUGH HAVING
BUSINESS BEFORE THIS COURT, DRAW

NIGH, GIVE ATTENTION AND YE SHALL
BE HEARD, GOD SAVE THE UNITED
STATES, GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA
AND THIS HONORABLE COURT.
>> GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, BE
SEATED.
>> GOOD MORNING FRIENDS, WELCOME
TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR FOR MAY
6th, FIRST CASE THIS MORNING IS
-- CONCERNS THE ADVISORY OPINION
WITH REGARD TO THE REFER RENT
DRA REQUIRED FOR THE ADOPTION
AND AMENDMENT OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND
USE PLANS.

MR. HUBENER?
>> MAY IT PLEASE THIS COURT,
LEWIS HUBENER ON BEHALF OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THIS CASE IS HERE PURSUANT TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REQUEST
FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION.
AND IN QUESTION IS THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENT AND ITS
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 100.61,
IT WAS PREVIOUSLY REMANDED, FOR
FURTHER -- PREVIOUSLY REMANDED
FOR FURTHER WORK AND IS BACK
BEFORE THE COURT.
THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO IT
TODAY.
--
>> MY CONCERN --
>> ARE YOU GOING TO -- DO YOU
WANT -- YOU ARE GOING TO LET --
>> RIGHT.
>> THE OTHER SIDE --
>> THERE IS NOT.
I WAS NOT HERE TO ADDRESS THE
CON SIDE OF I.
>> YOU ARE --

>> NO, I WAS NOT GOING TO -- NOT
PLANNING TO DO THAT.
WE HAVE NOT FILED ANYTHING WITH
THE COURT ON THE MATTER.
>> WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME IN THIS
CON TICKS -- CONTEXT WHERE THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS
SOMETHING THAT THE LEGISLATURE,
I GUESS, SUGGESTED, SO THAT THE
VOTERS WOULD HAVE A GOOD IDEA
ABOUT WHAT IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE,
WE MIGHT HAVE SOME PROBLEMS THEN
OF HOW DO WE GET INTO THIS
ADVERSARIAL TESTING AS TO
WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE IN
THIS CASE TO SAY THAT THERE WILL
STILL BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
STATEWIDE WILL PROBABLY BE SPENT
SO THAT YOU CAN'T -- I MEAN, YOU
JUST SAY --
>> I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE
HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF
INITIATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN
BEFORE THE COURT, TO DETERMINE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SINGLE
SUBJECT AND THE OTHER

REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE NOT HAD
OPPOSITION TO THEM AND HAVE NOT
BEEN ARGUED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE.
SO, THAT WAS NOT MY TENSION TO
SURPRISE MR. BURNAMAN TODAY BY
DOING THAT.
-- BURNAMAN TODAY BY DOING THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YES, SIR?
>> GOOD MORNING, MAY IT PLEASE
THE COURT, I'M ROSS BURNAMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE SPONSOR, AND WE'RE
HERE ON THE REMANDED FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENT.
>> WHAT SHOULD THEY SAY, WHAT
SHOULD BE IN THERE IF YOU WERE
WRITING IT, WHAT WOULD YOU --
THE MOST ACCURATE -- FINANCIAL
IMPACT --
>> JUSTICE PARIENTE, THERE HAVE
BEEN THREE SEPARATE FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS PREPARED
PREPARED TO THE SAME IDENTICAL
TEXT OF OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT
AND OF THE THREE I PREFER THE

FIRST.
THE COURT DIDN'T REACH THE
MERITS OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT BECAUSE THE COURT,
4-3, INVALIDATED IT ON THE
SINGLE SUBJECT RULE.
>> WHAT WAS THE FIRST ONE.
>> I'LL READ IT TO YOU.
>> IT IS ALSO QUOTED IN THE
BRIEF, YOUR HONOR, IF YOU GIVE
ME A MOMENT I'LL GET THE PAGE
FOR YOU.
>> WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR
THAT, DID YOU AGREE WITH THAT
STATEMENT?
>> I BELIEVE NOT, JUSTICE
CANTERA.
THE STATEMENT APPEARS ON PAGE 2
OF THE BRIEF AND HAVING SAID
THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT I -- WE
HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE --
>> AND AS -- THE DISSENT ON THE
LAST CASE I THINK PROPERLY
REFLECTS OUR VIEWS, BUT ANYWAY
ON PAGE 2 --

>> I SEE IT THERE, I DON'T THINK
YOU NEED TO READ IT.
>> OKAY.
.
IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED.
SO THAT'S IT.
>> ISN'T THE COMMITTEE, THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COMMITTEE REALLY BUT IN -- PUT
IN A DIFFICULT POSITION IN THAT
THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT TO
DEVELOP A FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT AND A LOT OF TIMES
DETERMINING THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
OF AN AMENDMENT IS VERY
SPECULATIVE.
AND IT DEPENDS ON A LOT OF
DIFFERENT CONTINGENCY THAT'S MAY
OR MAY NOT OCCUR, AND IN THIS
SITUATION IT DEPENDS ON MORE
THAN 67 DIFFERENT CONTINGENCIES,
REALLY, 67 TIMES HOWEVER MANY
MUNICIPALITIES EXIST IN A COUNTY
AND HOWEVER MANY REFERENDA ARE
GOING TO BE PROPOSED.
AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY

THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A
PROBABLE IMPACT OF X AND SO YOU
REALLY NEED TO MAKE IT A BROAD
KIND OF STATEMENT.
>> JUSTICE CANTERA, THE...  THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT ESTIMATING
CONFERENCE IS ESSENTIALLY A
POLITICAL BODY, OKAY?
THE GOVERNOR HAS HIS APPOINTEE,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, AND CHIEF
JUSTICE LEWIS I THINK IN A
CONCURRING OPINION BEFORE YOU
HAVE ALREADY RECOGNIZED THE
POTENTIAL FOR MISCHIEF I THINK
IN RESPECT TO THE HIGH SPEED
RAIL.
SO IN THE CASE AT BAR, WENT BACK
AND LOOKED AT THE THE PERSONAL
THAT HAD BEEN APPOINTED --
>> WAIT A MINUTE.
WAIT A MINUTE.
ONE, THIS IS CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT NOW.
THAT THERE BE A FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT, AND THAT IT BE

IMPLEMENTED BY THE LEGISLATURE,
CORRECT?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS THE
CONCORDANCE.
>> AND SECONDLY, WE HAVE LIMITED
OUR REVIEW AND THE FIRST OPINION
IN THIS CASE BY SAYING THAT THE
COURT HAS LIMITED ITSELF ONLY TO
ADDRESS WHETHER THE STATEMENT IS
CLEAR UNAMBIGUOUS, CONSISTENT --
CONSISTS OF NO MORE THAN 75
WORDS AND IS LIMITED TO ADDRESS
THE ESTIMATED INCREASE OR
DECREASE THAN ANY REVENUES AND
NOW -- SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
WE'RE NOT AT LIBERTY TO GET INTO
THE PERSONALITIES OF THOSE
PEOPLE WHO COMPRISE THOSE
COMMISSIONS -- THE COMMISSION OR
ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECIFICALLY
WHAT THEY HAVE PUT DOWN ON
PAPER.
AND SENT TO US.
AND ISN'T THAT WHAT WE LIMITED
OURSELVES TO INTO THAT IS
CORRECT, JUSTICE WELLS, THE -- I

GUESS THE COURT HAS EARLIER
GOTTEN INTO THE ISSUE -- EARLIER
GOTTEN INTO THE ISSUE OF
INDIRECT IMPACTS AS WELL AS THE
DIRECT IMPACTS AND SO THERE IS A
BODY OF JURISPRUDENCE.
I AGREE, THE COURT'S REVIEW IS
NARROW, BUT --
>> ISN'T THE ISSUE THAT WE
SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT, IS
WHETHER THIS WILL MISLEAD THE
VOTERS.
WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE
HAPPEN AND THE VOTERS THINK
SOMETHING WILL HAVE A MINIMAL
IMPACT COST WISE.
MAKES THEM THINK THERE WILL BE
ANOTHER HIGH SPEED RAIL,
CORRECT?
>> WELL, --
>> I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS THAT
THIS IS IDEA, IS IT GOING TO
CAUSE $10 MILLION, $100 MILLION,
$200 MILLION?
ZERO?
SO IF -- I GUESS WHAT I WAS

GOING TO ASK IS IF THEY SAID,
BECAUSE THEY SAID MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS AND YOU SAID THAT COULD
RANGE ANYWHERE FROM $2 MILLION
TO $999 MILLION, IF THEY HAD
SAID A REASONABLE ESTIMATE WOULD
BE SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
STATEWIDE OF AROUND A LITTLE
OVER 2 MILLION DOLLARS, WOULD
THAT BE MORE ACCURATE?
>> WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT,
JUSTICE PARIENTE.
TAKING ME RIGHT TO WHERE I WAS
GOING.
I TOOK A SIDE TRAIL ON IT
GETTING INTO THE COMPOSITIONS OF
FINANCIAL IMPACT ESTIMATING
CONFERENCE FOR A SPECIFIC
REASON, SINCE WE HAVE HAD THREE
DIFFERENT CONFERENCES ON THE
SAME IDENTICAL TEXT.
BUT THE -- IF YOU LOOK ON THE
STATEMENT ITSELF, THAT WAS SENT
OVER, THAT IS, THE -- NOT THE
ACTUAL STATEMENT BUT THE SOME OR
WHAT IS CALLED THE INFORMATION

SUMMARY, WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS
THAT THE -- THEY USED THE 2004
DATA.
I WILL READ FROM PAGE 4,
BRIEFLY, IF I MIGHT.
IT SAYS, IN DETERMINE THE FISCAL
IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS, THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
ESTIMATING CONFERENCE HELPED
SEVERAL PUBLIC WORKSHOPS IN JULY
2004, AUGUST 2004, FEBRUARY 2006
AND MARCH 2006, AND THEN, IT
SAYS, IN ADDITION TO TESTIMONY
AND MATERIALS PROVIDED AT THE
VARIOUS WORKSHOPS, THE
CONFERENCE REQUESTED AND
RECEIVED SURVEY DATA FROM CITY
AND COUNTY OFFICIALS AND
SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS.
SURVEY DATA FROM CITY AND COUNTY
OFFICIALS AND SUPERVISORS OF THE
-- ELECTIONS WAS RECEIVED IN
2004
THE CONFERENCE DETERMINED THAT
REQUESTING ADDITIONAL DATA FROM
CITY AND COUNTY OFFICIALS WOULD

NOT PROVIDE ANY NEW OR
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT
INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION --
ANALYZING THE 2006
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
SO THAT IS PAGE 4.
NOW, ON PAGE 6, QUOTE, THE
SURVEY RESPONSE -- REFERRING TO
THE 2004 ONES, INDICATE THE
MAJORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ANTICIPATE THE VOLUME OF
PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENTS WOULD
REMAIN THE SAME.
THEREFORE, ANY MIST FISCAL
IMPACT RELATED TO INCREASED OR
DECREASED VOLUME OF AMENDMENTS
WOULD BE INSIGNIFICANT.
SO THE COURT'S OPINION REJECTING
THE PRIOR STATEMENT WITH RESPECT
TO THIS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT
ACCURATELY, I MIGHT ADD, THAT
WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO CREATE A DIS
INCENTIVE TO THESE PROMISCUOUS
PLAN AMENDMENTS, THESE ARE LONG
RANGE GROWTH PLANS THAT ARE NOT

TO BE AMENDED EVERY MEETING
BASICALLY.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A
DISINCENTIVE AND THE COURT HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT.
TALKED ABOUT --
>> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HERE
TRYING TO FOLLOW EXACTLY WHAT IT
IS YOU ARE SAYING.
WHAT IS YOUR CLEAR STATEMENT OF
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS
STATEMENT?
WHY ISN'T THIS DECISION TO PUT
THIS PUBLIC ON NOTICE OF WHAT IS
A POSSIBLE -- THEY'RE POSSIBLE
RAMIFICATIONS OF PASSING THAT
AMENDMENT?
>> JUSTICE -- THE COURT, THE
COURT THREW OUT THE LAST
STATEMENT BECAUSE THE STATEMENT
DIDN'T -- DEALING WITH THE
FREQUENCY OF PLAN AMENDMENTS
DIDN'T RECOGNIZE THAT THE
APPARENT PURPOSE OF THE
AMENDMENT IS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT
OF REVISIONS TO A COUNTY OR

CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
THEY HAD ASSUMED THAT THE
AMENDMENT WOULD NOT HAVE THAT
INTENDED EFFECT AND SO WHAT I'M
POINTING OUT HERE IS ESSENTIALLY
THE FINANCIAL IMPACT ESTIMATING
CONFERENCE HAS NOT CORRECTED THE
PROBLEM THAT --
>> WHAT MORE CAN THEY SAY?
THEY SAY THE ACTUAL COST IS
DEPENDENT UPON THE FREQUENCY AND
THE METHOD OF THE REFERENDUM.
NOW, SHOULD THEY HAVE TO GO INTO
SOMETHING THAT SAYS THAT ONLY IF
THESE REFERENDA ARE DONE AT A
TIME OTHER THAN A GENERAL
ELECTION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
I'M JUST NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT
IT IS THEY COULD HAVE SAID
DIFFERENTLY THAT WOULD BE MORE
INFORMATIVE TO THE PUBLIC.
>> WELL, I GUESS THAT THAT GOES
TO THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE
INARTICULATELY TRIED TO EXPRESS
TO YOU AND THAT IS ALTHOUGH THE
COURT'S REVIEW IS NARROW, OKAY,

THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
UNDERLYING DATA AND ANALYSIS
THAT WAS PERFORMED --
>> BUT LET'S --
>> BUTT IS IT YOUR POSITION --
BUT IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT THE
PRIOR FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND THIS ONE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME?
>> THE SECOND SENTENCE IS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME, YES,
YOUR HONOR.
>> THE FIRST ONE SAYS, WILL
INCUR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
STATEWIDE AND THE OTHER,
PROBABLE THAT WILL INCUR
SIGNIFICANT COSTS, MILLIONS
STATEWIDE.
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
>> AND I GUESS I'M GOING -- WHEN
I ASK AT THE BEGINNING WHAT
COULD THEY SAY BETTER, EVEN
THOUGH WE CAN'T REDRAFT IT, YOU
ARE SAYING IT WOULD BE
PREFERABLE TO STATE THAT IT IS

INDETERMINANT BECAUSE IT DEPENDS
ON THE NUMBER OF ELECTIONS THAT
ARE HELD OUT OF CYCLE.
IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT,
THAT IT ONLY WILL INCREASE COSTS
IF THERE ARE -- AND PLEASE HELP
ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS, IF
THERE ARE OUT -- THEY HAVE TO
HOLD SPECIAL ELECTIONS.
>> THAT IS NOT IT.
>> NO, THEN HELP US.
>> THERE IS A SPECIAL ELECTION
-- WELL, OF COURSE WE HAVE
ELECTIONS ALL THE TIME, WE HAVE
PRIMARIES, AND SO THERE IS THE
CYCLE ISSUE AND THERE IS ALSO
THE NUMBER OF PLAN AMENDMENT AT
ISSUE AND WHAT I'M SAYING HERE
IS THAT --
>> OKAY.
IF WE HAVE THE BALLOT IN
NOVEMBER, THE BALLOT HAS TEN
ITEMS ON IT, OR IT HAS 20 ITEMS.
THAT IS NOT GOING -- THAT
DOESN'T INCREASE -- THAT IS A DE
MINIMUS COST.

>> I WOULD CAN OCCUR WITH THAT
STRONGLY.
>> AND IS SET AT THE TIME THERE
IS ALREADY AN ELECTION
HAPPENING.
THAT IS ALSO A -- NO ADDITIONAL
COST.
THE ONLY REASON THERE WOULD BE
SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL COSTS IS
STATEWIDE IF THERE ARE SPECIAL
ELECTIONS JUST FOR THESE PLAN
AMENDMENTS.
>> THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT.
>> BUT THE PROBLEM THERE IS, AS
I UNDERSTAND IT, AND CORRECT ME
IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT IT WAS IN
THE STATUTE ON GETTING THESE
APPROVED THROUGH THE STATE
PLANNING, THAT THERE ARE TIME
LIMITS THAT ARE SET UP THAT --
THE PLAN HAS TO BE APPROVED AND
SO, THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THAT ATTEMPT, WITH
THAT STATUTE, THERE HAS TO BE
SPECIAL ELECTIONS, THAT IS THE
REASONING BEHIND AS I UNDERSTOOD

WHAT THE COMMISSION WAS SAYING.
IS THERE ARE OTHER TIME
CONSIDERATIONS THAT WOULD FORCE
THESE INTO SPECIAL ELECTIONS.
>> JUSTICE WELLS, I'M VERY
FAMILIAR WITH THIS STATUTES YOU
ARE REFERRING TO AND IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE, THE TIMELINE IS
TRIGGERED BY THE TRANSMITTAL OF
A PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT.
NOW, SOME OF THEM DON'T GET
TRANSMITTED, THE SMALL SCALE
AMENDMENTS DON'T GO THROUGH THAT
PROCESS, BUT SPEAKING TO THE
LARGE SCALE AMENDMENTS, THE
TIMING OF THE STATE'S REVIEW AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENT
IT RESPOND TO THAT REVIEW IS
TRIGGERED BY THE DATE THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT TRANSMITS A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE STATE.
THAT'S SOLELY WITHIN THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT'S PROVIDENCE BUT --
>> THE REASON FOR THAT STATUTE
WAS THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF
PLANS BEING HELD UP IN -- AND

DELAYED AND THE LEGISLATURE CAME
BY IN THE 1980s WHEN THE WHOLE
THING WAS DEVELOPED AND BUTT PUT
TIME LIMITS IN IT.
>> WELL, MY RECOLLECTION OF THE
STATUTE, JUSTICE WELLS, IS THAT
IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY REVISED IN
1985
>> RIGHT.
>> AND BEFORE 1985, THESE PLANS
WERE ADVISORY.
AND THE 1985 ACT MADE THEM
MANDATORY HAVING THE FORCE OF
LAW RESTRICTING PEOPLE'S PRIVATE
PROPERTY RIGHTS.
>> WE'RE DOING AN AWFUL LOT OF
DANCING AROUND, IT SEEMS TO ME,
AS OPPOSED TO GETTING, YOU KNOW,
TO THE POINT.
AND I THINK WE NEED A LITTLE BIT
MORE HELP INSOFAR AS YOUR FIRM
OPINION, WE DON'T GET TO DRAFT
THIS FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
OKAY?
ONE OF THE OPTIONS WE DO NOT
HAVE IS TO SAY WELL, WE'VE

LOOKED AT WHAT THEY'VE COME UP
WITH AND NOW THREE TIMES, AS YOU
INDICATE, AND SO WE FINALLY HAD
IT, AND HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE PUT ON THE BALLOT.
WE DON'T GET TO DO THAT.
OKAY?
AND THIS IS A DIFFICULT PROCESS
IN TERMS OF BOUNCING IT BACK OR
WHATEVER.
IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE ONLY
OBJECTION THAT YOU HAVE IS TO
THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT IS
MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT?
IS THAT -- THAT IS THE -- AND
YOU NEED TO GET RIGHT TO THAT,
BECAUSE YOU ARE -- NOT ONLY ARE
WE RUNNING OUT OF TIME FOR ORAL
ARGUMENT BUT WE REALLY NEED TO
KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOUR
DRUTHERS ARE AND THEN WE'LL
CONSIDER IT AND -- BUT IS THAT
WHERE YOU ARE?
AND THAT IS, THAT UNDER THESE
UNCERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT
YOU FEEL THEY SHOULDN'T PUT ANY

AMOUNT IN THERE THAT IS WHOLLY
SPECULATIVE AND THERE IS NO
BASIS TO PUT THAT AMOUNT, OR IT
IS YOUR POSITION, NO, THEY CAN
PUT AN AMOUNT IN THERE BUT JUST
DIDN'T GET IT RIGHT OR
SOMETHING?
SO HOW ABOUT GETTING RIGHT TO
THAT, AS FAR AS THE
OBJECTIONABLE PART OF THE
STATEMENT THAT IS BEFORE US NOW?
>> IT IS TERRIBLY SPECULATIVE
JUSTICE --
>> BUT, IS THAT YOUR --
>> TOTALLY -- YES, YOUR HONOR
--.
>> DOLLAR AMOUNT IS THAT YOUR
OBJECTION.
>> THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS
OBJECTIONABLE, YOUR HONOR, BUT
ALSO, WHEN THEY STATED THAT THEY
WOULD INCUR THESE SIGNIFICANT
COSTS THAT IMPLIES THEY AC --
THEY AC -- ACTUALLY FIGURED IT
OUT BUT IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 5 OF
THE FISCAL ANALYSIS HERE THEY

STATED THE AVERAGE COST OF
ADVERTISING, PUBLIC MEETINGS AND
ALL THESE THINGS WERE
INDETERMINANT, OTHER COSTS, SO
THEY BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, BREAK
THESE COSTS AS THEY FOUND THEM
TO BE INDETERMINANT AND YET WHAT
WOULD APPEAR ON THE BALLOT
BEFORE FLORIDA VOTERS --
>> IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AND THE
USE OF THE PHRASE "SIGNIFICANT
COSTS" --ED.
>> THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS
OBJECTIONABLE, NOT ONLY IS IT
TOTALLY SPECULATIVE, YOUR HONOR,
IT IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF
REGISTERED VOTERS, THE COST OF A
MAIL-IN BALLOT AND THEN,
ASSUMING THERE WAS ISSUES
AFFECTING 25% OF THE VOTERS
WITHIN A TWO-YEAR PERIOD.
BUT THE -- IT IS ALSO VAGUE
BECAUSE THE PHRASE "MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS" AS JUSTICE PARIENTE
POINTED OUT, COULD RANGE FROM $2
MILLION TO $999 MILLION.

NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE A RANGE OF
PROBABLE IMPACTS IN THEIR FISCAL
STATEMENT.
THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT IT'S
AN OPTION AND HERE THEY DIDN'T
DO IT, THEY THREW OUT A VAGUE
AND MURKY POLITICAL STATEMENT,
THE VOTERS GOING TO THE BOOTH
SAY, OH, WOW, THE STATE
GOVERNMENT AND THE BUDGET IS --
YOU KNOW, IS ON A DOWNTURN.
THIS IS GOING TO COST MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS, AND OH, GEE THAT
MIGHT BE $999 MILLION, I'M
VOTING AGAINST IT.
>> BUT IS IT REALLY, REALLY
APPROPRIATE OR IS IT A PROPER
INFERENCE WHEN YOU SAY MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS THAT YOU MEAN $999
MILLION AND USUALLY WHEN YOU ARE
TALKING THOSE FIGURES, YOU A ARE
NOT SAYING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
YOU ARE SAYING NEARLY A BILLION,
A BILLION, HALF A BILLION
DOLLARS, USING THOSE TERMS, YOU

ARE NOT SAYING MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS.
>> I'M NOT SURE OF WHAT YOUR
QUESTION.
>> JUSTICE CANTERA.
>> THE INFERENCE A VOTER WOULD
TAKE WHEN LOOKING AT THE BALLOT
AND SAYS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MEANS $999
MILLION.
>> THE VOTER COULD ALSO ASSUME
THAT IT MEANT SOME OTHER FIGURE.
WHAT THE POINT IS I'M TRYING TO
MAKE, JUSTICE CANTERA IS THAT
THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT OF THE
PROBABLE IMPACT.
MORE IS IS THE STATE OF THE
RANGE OF PROBABLE IMPACT.
IT IS A WHOLLY SPECULATIVE
NUMBER THAT IS IN FACT VAGUE AND
DOESN'T PROVIDE A RANGE OF
PROBABLE IMPACTS.
TO THE BALLOT AND I ALSO WANT --
I APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING SO MUCH
TIME AND I WANT TO POINT OUT
SOMETHING THAT I OMITTED TO

BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION
IN MY BRIEF.
AND THAT WOULD BE ON -- AGAIN
NOT -- FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT BUT IN THE FINANCIAL
INFORMATION STATEMENT WHICH IS
PROVIDED TO THE VOTER, BUT NOT
ON THE BALLOT, BUT AT THE
POLLING PLACE, ON PAGE 1, THE
CAPTION INDICATES THAT IT IS IS
THE INITIATIVE FINANCIAL
INFORMATION STATEMENT FOR THE,
QUOTED, REPEAL OF ARTICLE 10,
SECTION 19, OF THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION AND OBVIOUSLY
DEMOCRACY IS NOT ADVOCATING
THAT.
THAT PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
>> WAIT A MINUTE, IS THAT PART
OF OUR REVIEW?
>> WELL, I BELIEVE THAT IN THE
LAST OPINION, YOUR HONOR, WHAT
YOU SAID WAS -- BEAR WITH ME ONE
SECOND.
THE COURT STATED ON PAGE 213 IN
THREE SEPARATE PLACES SECTION

100.37 1:REFERS THIS COURT TO
THIS COURT PERFORMING A JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF THE STATEMENT TO
ENSURE ITS CONFORMITY WITH
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.
ONE OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT
IS THAT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT BE DERIVED FAIRLY FROM
THE INFORMATION.
>> YOU ARE GOING TO SOMETHING
THAT IS AT THE POLLING PLACE.
YOU ARE -- WERE YOU NOT MAKING
REFERENCE TO SOMETHING THAT IS
AT THE POLLING PLACE.
>> YES, I WAS, YOUR HONOR, BUT
WHAT I --
>> MY QUESTION WAS TO THAT, IS
THAT REALLY SOMETHING THAT WE
REVIEW?
>> I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE HELD
THAT YOU DO IN FACT REVIEW THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> FOR YOUR TIME, APPRECIATE
NIGHT