Looking at some claims surrounding Amendment 4:

1.) St. Pete Beach passed a measure that’s like Amendment 4 and it resulted in litigation and economic stagnation.
Voters who didn’t like the city commission’s proposal to change the comprehensive plan, partly to increase density and attract new hotels, got charter amendments in 2006 that would allow them to vote on comprehensive plans. That is similar to Amendment 4. The city sued to block that and lost on appeal. In 2009, a referendum was placed on the ballot that wold have helped nice hotels progress. It was overwhelmingly approved. However, it was challenged in court because the 75-word blurb was considered a misrepresentation of the project, especially since it didn’t mention height or density, according to the attorney who filed the challenges. Kenneth Weiss, a proponent of Amendment 4 and considered an architect of the St. Pete Beach citizen initiative. The city recently passed a resolution opposing the statewide Amendment 4. News accounts show some projects in St. Pete Beach have been in limbo amid the litigation, so there are arguably examples of stagnation.
2.) Amendment 4 could increase the time it takes for projects to be built.
A public vote following a local government vote is an added step. There are questions about how quickly governments might schedule a special election, which could cost money.
3.) Amendment 4 will cost 267,247 jobs.
That is one scenario in a study by the Washington Economics Group of Coral Gables. It was commissioned by Amendment 4 foes and calls this the most likely scenario, but also has a moderate impact scenario of 106,652 lost jobs. The economist who conducted the study says the best guess is the impact would be over about a three-year period. Supporters of Amendment 4 had two University of Central Florida economists review the WEG study. They say it is “garbage in, garbage out” and doesn’t prove anything about job losses.
4.) Voters in another city could vote on a project in my city.
History shows that projects requiring comprehensive plan changes are voted on in the city where the project is planned.
5.) Voters who live a distance form the project could vote on a project.
If the land use change is in a large city of unincorporated area, some voters could live miles from a project.
6.) The public could end up voting on land use changes that were rejected by county officials.
The Amendment 4 ballot language talks about a local government “considering” an amendment, not passing an amendment. Some opponents say that could lead to a public vote even on projects rejected by elected officials. A court challenge may be needed to sort out the intent of the referendum language, some legal experts say.
7.) A YouTube video says the Florida Chamber of Commerce supports Amendment 4
A YouTube video shows the chamber’s legislative counsel discussing support for Amendment 4, but it was filmed in 2008 and refers to a previous Amendment 4. The chamber is staunchly opposed to this Amendment 4.
Adapted from Sept. 10-16, 2010 edition of the Jacksonville Business Journal, Page 7