Duck Tape Warning!

[DROliver]

Wrap as much Duck Tape you have around your head.Its going to explode especially if you live in Florida.I am on the phone as I speak and have many other friends doing the same. Please read the following article on http://boortz.com

FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE OUTRAGE

http://boortz.com

The sentate is set to vote on it today!!!

Please call and voice your opinion.

Senate phone number is 850-487-5078.

House office number is 850-488-8749

I was told 15 minutes ago that this bill is needed it will help the poor and unemployed and it will pass.

I am a registered Independant,but if this bill passes I will do everything I can to vote out as many republicans including President Bush.This is about as bad as having Kerry as our next President,but if that is what it takes to save peoples property then so be it.

This is why Wal-Mart is really bad for America.They have done this act hundreds of times.They steal property of individuals to give a community low pay jobs with little room to improve their lives.It is creating a vacum in small communities through out America.YEs it is a good thing they have jobs yet they will work and their next generation will work and so on for Wal-Mart.What is even a more unpleasent thought,these Wal-Mart people(as Glen Beck calls them)buy their clothes,their food well 99% of everything they need from Wal-Mart. All of this because your local government via their powers seizes property and gives to Wal-Mart.In return Wal-Mart pays no taxes or impact fees and keeps a good portipn of the population working low paying jobs!

Here is an out take of the article:

OK .. so what's the big deal? Both HB1513 and SB2548 would give to local Florida governments the power to take property away from an individual landowner and sell it to a private developer for a shopping center, office development, or virtually any other private purpose. This legislation would allow any local government in Florida to seize private property and hand it over to a private developer for no other reason than to increase the amount of money the local government could get from that piece of property by way of real estate taxes. The government's responsibility to the land owner? To pay the owner a "fair" price. Fair .. as determined by the government. Isn't this just great? Two Republicans showing us all that the Republican Party is the party of freedom and property rights. And you wonder why I'm a Libertarian?


Florida is the beging and it wont end unless we do something about it.

Call them NOW!:

The House bill is HB 1513, sponsored by Rep. Gayle Harrell, a Republican from the Stuart area. She's a former government school teacher. Her House office number is 850-488-8749. The Senate Bill is SB 2548, sponsored by Sen. Mike Bennett, another Republican. Bennett is from the Bradenton area. His Senate phone number is 850-487-5078.

The senate is voting later today on this matter.

Peace
Steve O.

[GalvestonDuck]

Like it says on Boortz's site --

"ALWAYS REMEMBER
Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."

So, I did some homework.

Text of HB 1513

GENERAL BILL by Harrell (CO-SPONSORS) Ambler
Regulating the Consolidation and Recordation of Lands: Provides for assembly and readjustment of land plats; revises provisions relating to recording land plats; revises powers of county governments to regulate lands; specifies consolidation of property for specified purposes as a public purpose; revises the definition of the term "land development regulations" and defines the term "land assembly or adjustment"; revises requirements of future land use plan elements of a required comprehensive plan to address antiquated subdivisions and consolidation of certain properties; provides a deadline for addressing plan amendments; revises land development regulation requirements to address consolidation of properties for specified purposes; revises definitions to include consolidation of certain properties and antiquated subdivisions; includes antiquated subdivisions under community redevelopment plan requirements; includes consolidation of properties for specified purposes under municipal powers of eminent domain; provides additional purposes and scope relating to platting, replatting, and reassembly of lands; provides intent relating to regulation of land platting and land assembly or adjustment; revises the definition of the term "subdivision" and defines the term "land assembly or adjustment"; requires recordation of approved subdivision plats in public records; authorizes local governing bodies to order the assembly or adjustment of all or portions of subdivisions for specified purposes; declares the revitalization of antiquated subdivisions to be a public purpose; revises provisions for determining general distress of certain areas to include antiquated subdivisions and other criteria; revises the definition of the term "land development regulations" and defines the terms "antiquated subdivisions" and "land assembly or adjustment."
Effective Date: upon becoming a law
Last Action: Bill cosponsorship withdrawn on Monday, April 26, 2004 2:16 PM

Date Available for Final Passage: Friday, April 23, 2004 12:52 PM
Closed to Main Amendments: after 10:00am - Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Closed to Adhering Amendments: after 6:00pm - Tuesday, April 20, 2004

Text of SB 2548

GENERAL BILL by Comprehensive Planning and Bennett
Consolidation & Recordation of Lands: provides for assembly & readjustment of certain land plats; revises requirements of future land use plan elements of required comprehensive plan to address antiquated subdivisions & consolidation of certain properties for certain purposes; includes antiquated subdivisions under certain community redevelopment plan requirements; requires submittal of certain approved plats to certain entities, etc. Amends FS.
Effective Date: Upon becoming law
Last Action: 04/26/04 S Ordered engrossed on Monday, April 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Date Available for Final Passage: Not Applicable
Closed to Main Amendments: Not Applicable
Closed to Adhering Amendments: Not Applicable

FYI - In this case, "engrossed" means to draw up a final draft of a document. From what I've read, they're not voting on anything yet. They've made amendments and must approve a final draft after it is presented to them.

As for how it reads, I'll let you guys decide for yourselves.

[DROliver]

I was told by the senator's office that it will pass and the vote is today.

These bills will give local governments the right without interfernce to seize your private property!!!!

Make no doubt about it.

Call 850-487-5078 they are voting today!

Steve O.

[streetsoldier]

Being a resident of Missouri, I have no influence in whatever happens in Florida (nor should I).

After having read the initial material and AFLAC's update, I am not too concerned with immediate passage.

[azsnowman]

I've always said and will STAND BY my statement, "I HATE WALMART with a PASSION" They are and WILL BE the downfall of AMERICA! They have, for ALL intents and purposes, RUINED this mountain community, you are FORCED to shop there or travel off the mountain to shop, me, I travel 158 miles to Flagstaff or 180 miles to Gallup, New Mexico to shop, I "REFUSE" to shop Wally World.....the unemployment rate on this mountain is at 8.7% thanks to WalMart.

Dennis

[DROliver]

update:

Bill Number ....: CSSB 2548 Date: 4/27/2004
Amendment Number: Time: 04:13PM
Reading Number .: 3 Roll Call: 46
Floor Actions ..:

Yeas - 18 Nays - 19 Not Voting - 3
VA VO MEMBER VA VO MEMBER VA VO MEMBER
_ Y Alexander _ Y Dockery _ N Peaden
_ N Argenziano _ N Fasano _ N Posey
_ Y Aronberg _ Y Garcia _ Y Pruitt
_ Y Atwater _ Y Geller _ Y Saunders
_ Y Bennett _ N Haridopolos _ N Sebesta
_ Y Bullard _ Y Hill _ Y Siplin
_ N Campbell _ N Jones _ N Smith
_ Y Carlton _ - King _ Y Villalobos
_ N Clary _ N Klein _ N Wasserman Schultz
_ N Constantine _ - Lawson _ N Webster
_ N Cowin _ Y Lee _ Y Wilson
_ N Crist _ N Lynn _ N Wise
_ - Dawson _ Y Margolis
_ Y Diaz de la Portilla _ N Miller
Presiding: Webster President: James King
'VA'=Vote After Roll Call 'VO'=Chamber Vote


The 3 no votes will be permitted to vote after roll.That is what i have been told.So it is still not decided.

Steve O.

[DROliver]

04/27/04 SENATE Read third time; Amendment(s) adopted; CS failed to pass; YEAS 18 NAYS 19; Reconsidered; CS passed as amended; YEAS 22 NAYS 16

Bill Number ....: CSSB 2548 Date: 4/27/2004
Amendment Number: Time: 04:28PM
Reading Number .: 3 Roll Call: 48
Floor Actions ..: Reconsideration

Yeas - 22 Nays - 16 Not Voting - 2
VA VO MEMBER VA VO MEMBER VA VO MEMBER
_ Y Alexander _ Y Dockery _ N Peaden
_ N Argenziano _ N Fasano _ N Posey
_ Y Aronberg _ Y Garcia _ Y Pruitt
_ Y Atwater _ Y Geller _ Y Saunders
_ Y Bennett _ N Haridopolos _ N Sebesta
_ Y Bullard _ N Hill _ Y Siplin
_ Y Campbell _ N Jones _ N Smith
_ Y Carlton _ Y King _ Y Villalobos
_ N Clary _ Y Klein _ Y Wasserman Schultz
_ N Constantine _ N Lawson _ N Webster
_ - Cowin _ - Lee _ Y Wilson
_ N Crist _ N Lynn _ N Wise
_ Y Dawson _ Y Margolis
_ Y Diaz de la Portilla _ Y Miller
Presiding: King President: James King
'VA'=Vote After Roll Call 'VO'=Chamber Vote

[coriolis]

What Duck posted is not the entire text of the law, it's just a summary. It does allude to eminent domain and all sorts of things that could allow siezure of property for redevelopment. Words like "certain properties" and "specified purposes" are extremly vague and one would have to read the text to see the definitions and uses that are proposed. The summary is extremely suspect in that it is consistent with what DR Oliver is saying. I would speculate that this law would allow siezure and consolidation of land for a purpose deemed to be in the public interest for redevelopment. That could be industrial, commercial, or residential development. It does mention comprehensive plans which are prepared by the locality for desired land uses. If a person lives in land that is designated for commercial or industrial, that land could be targeted. It's all in the name of jobs and economic development! Don't get me wrong, I'm against seizing land so that fat cats can get fatter. However in blighted areas, redevelopment could be a good thing. Here in Pennsylvania, local govt authorities do have the power of eminent domain, for public improvements such as highways, airports, water treatment plants, and the like. There also are industrial development authorities which may also have the power. In Florida, where development is happening by leaps and bounds, it's probably more of an issue. If I have time, I'll look for the text of the law. It's probably many pages long.

[coriolis]

Only one hit on Google. It is a reference to the law, not the text and mentions redevelopment in coastal hazard areas. Not what we're looking for....

[DROliver]

Hey Coriolis,

They passed admendments that have taken the new eminent domain language out.They did this today.However as a Senator said " this is a sugar coat and we all know it, the power of eminent domain will be used even more than it is today"


Here is the amended bill:

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_pa ... text/html/

Steve O.

[coriolis]

I don't see anything in this version that would allow the gov't to sieze property and turn it over to private developers.

The county planning agencies are required to maintain a plan for future development in a way that promotes the welfare of the community. Avoiding urban sprawl, for instance is one goal. There is an emphasis in this law on re-using land that is presently subdivided and poorly used - not built out to capacity, or having nonconforming or "undesirable" uses. The previous subdivision can be negated and the land re-assembled and combined with adjacent properties into larger tracts. The owner of the land would be the person who does this. I didn't see where the property would transfer to the govt. For instance if a developer sold off portions of a subdivision, but the residue does not sell, the land can be re-assembled into one big property again for another use that is consistent with the county plan. There is language to protect existing parcel owners who do not want to participate.

The county is the key agency as they prepare the plan. I did not see anything that allows opportunities for public review and comment of the plan and revisions, but that should be covered in a previous law. Citizens who are interested in the plan contents need to act as the watchdog on the county planning agency. It would be interesting to see what provisions are made for public input. Local planning is better than central planning.

Land use planning has long had its detractors, and the powers given to the planning agencies can be abused. Informed citizens who take the time to be watchdogs can accomplish much. These laws give power to the county agency to shape and direct future development. We don't want schools next to factories, etc. It's a fact that everyone gives up some rights for the good of the community. the key question is who is deciding what's good for the community. That's where concerned and involved citizens come in.

Even when land is condemned, (which is not covered in this draft) a property owner has recourse in the courts. Sure it takes money to hire a lawyer, but it can be done.

If I was living in an area that is rapidly developing, I might be tempted to sell out and find a better place. I've seen places where a single residential property is surrounded by strip malls, auto repair shops, and all that. Who would want to live there? Those houses often turn into rental properties.

It doesn't appear that this version of the law will allow Walmart to take grandma's farm if she want's to stay put, but it might make it easier for grandma to sell out if she decides to.