The keystone of our democracy is that the majority rules. In taking away the simple majority vote proposed by the amendment to County and City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plans we neither further our democratic process nor provide greater assurance that our planning process will be improved. An extraordinary majority vote takes away the very essence of the majority rule of the commissions. When it comes to the votes of small elected bodies composed of five members like our commissions, an absence, abstention, or an individual or two bowing to strident parochialism or narrow interests could derail good and needed programs endorsed by the majority of our elected officials. The requirement for a supermajority will place control in the hands of a small minority instead of the collective wisdom of the majority of the County and City Commission.

The preparation of Comprehensive Plan amendments is an exhaustive process that takes up to a year to complete. Citizens interact and provide input on Comprehensive Plan proposals when they attend formal meetings and come forward to give their opinion on issues relevant to the plan changes. Finally plans are presented to the Commissions for their final approval. The wisdom of the elected officials is usually embodied in their votes which tend to pass policies that are acceptable to most people if those elected are interested in being returned as representatives of the people in the next election. In short there is no compelling argument to impose a supermajority vote, other than to impose minority control over the majority. As pointed out by the Sarasota League of Women Voters on March 24, 2006, “one of the proposed charter changes requires extraordinary votes on specific rezoning requests that could hinder redevelopment within the urban service area and could adversely affect affordable housing initiatives and other important changes in land use. Placing such a detailed procedural requirement in the Sarasota County Charter is inconsistent with the role of a charter to outline the basic structure and functions of government and would restrain the ability of elected representatives to modify the requirement in the face of changed circumstances or currently unknown consequences.”

Equally troubling is the lack of definition as to what constitutes “increases in allowable land use density” in the County version of the proposal. In the City of Sarasota version the “supermajority” vote is defined as to conditions necessary to require the vote, i.e., changes “that increase maximum allowable density, height, or floor area ratio; or that adds new future land use classifications.” Not so with the County version. Poorly defined governmental regulations open themselves to legal challenge and unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer dollars in attempting to defend their validity.

Though the proponents of this amendment contend that passage will promote “growth control,” “control of traffic,” “giving citizens a stronger voice,” and “saving the environment,” it is hard to understand that all of this will be accomplished simply by imposing limitations on majority voting. If there is a problem with our Comprehensive Planning process, should we not be debating proposals that fix the process, as opposed to empowering a small minority to block the votes of the majority of voters representatives? Seldom has it been seen that a proposal has been placed before the voters of Sarasota that has given the power to so few to be exercised over so many. Our elected commissions work because they are a united minority of citizens working together against a divided majority. Let us not divide them further in to smaller voting blocs where we get governance controlled by a minority of our elected officials. Vote ”NO” on November 6, 2007 to “Supermajority” voting.