Last week, I wrote the following after an online chat with Ryan Houck, executive director of Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, the group behind the āNo on 4ā³ campaign:
Houck offered a counter-proposal during the chat. He said cities should conduct āvisioning projects,ā which involve āobtaining the input of thousands of citizens through planning sessions and workshops and developing a cohesive strategy for a community over a period of decades.ā That, he said, would lead to more responsible planning, without the negative side effects.
Rebecca Eagan, a reader (and Amendment 4 supporter) from Winter Park responds:
The answer to your own article titleās question, āaside from Amendment 4, what are Floridaās growth management options?ā is that there are none.
Ryan Houckās helpful-sounding (but bogus) ācounterproposalā of āvisioning projectsā which āobtain the input of ⦠citizens through planning sessionsā has been a staple ploy of developer-coached county planning divisions for several years now, in order to feign āpublic participation,ā while neatly pulling the wool over citizen-participantsā eyes by assuring them that their input counts, when ā after a big show of soliciting and recording it ā that āinputā ultimately is tossed in the trash and the scheme developers and planners wanted in the first place is announced as the most practical and desirable for all and adopted with little debate by the Board of County Commissioners.
This certainly happened with āInnovation Wayā in Orange County, and it didnāt take us duped participants long to realize weād been had.
So, thanks Mr. Houck, but Iāll take Amendment 4.
The letter has been lightly edited for clarity and punctuation. Background on the Innovation Way project can be found here.