Years from now, history will cruelly judge this colossally dysfunctional Florida Legislature — but not primarily because of the Senate and House conflict over Medicaid, which caused Speaker Steve Crisafulli to abruptly adjourn early in a fit of pique.
Granted, the action made the House leadership look ridiculous. But childish antics are not novel in the political world. Neither are bitter standoffs over difficult issues.
What will distinguish and disgrace this Legislature is the preening arrogance with which lawmakers dismissed a clear directive from voters.
Last November, 75 percent of voters passed Amendment 1, a constitutional ballot initiative that requires the state to spend more on land conservation. It won the support of Democrats and Republicans alike.
But lawmakers have, so far, shown they don’t care what the people of Florida want. They will do as they — or the special interests that call most of the shots in Tallahassee — please.
Prior to the meltdown that abruptly ended the session, both the House and Senate were refusing to support land preservation, despite the vote.
If the early adjournment represents a breakdown in legislative leadership, the refusal to implement Amendment 1 represents a breakdown in democracy.
Lawmakers, most in safe districts designed to protect incumbents, obviously feel no responsibility to honor the voters’ will. This is an even more blatant abuse of a constitutional amendment than the slippery use of Florida Lottery dollars. Voters adopted the lottery in 1986 to “enhance” public education, but lawmakers have frequently used it to replace general revenue spending on schools.
Amendment 1 addresses a pressing need. In recent years the state had virtually abandoned land conservation. With rapid growth returning, Floridians recognized the need to save natural lands that would otherwise be paved over.
Yet Amendment 1 supports a conservation strategy that does not rely on government regulations. Indeed, it emphasizes property rights.
Environmentally valuable parcels can be bought outright. But with funds generated by the measure, the state also can buy development rights to tracts that serve as key wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge areas and such. This allows ranchers and other agricultural operations to continue, but compensates landowners for the loss in property values.
It is about as fair a way to protect land as can be fashioned.
The amendment requires one-third of the state’s existing documentary stamp tax revenues be used for protecting and managing natural lands. It is expected to generate about $700 million a year. The measure did not raise taxes, and sunsets after 20 years.
Sen. Alan Hays, an Umatilla Republican who has led the fight against land acquisition, claims the state already owns too much land. That is ridiculous.
About 9.4 million acres — about 25 percent — is in some form of public ownership. About 2 million acres more are targeted for preservation under the Florida Forever land-buying program, which would represent about another 5 percent.
It is highly unlikely that much land could be acquired — land is bought only from willing sellers and at appraised value. But even if it were possible to preserve 30 percent of Florida, that hardly seems extravagant, given that doing so would safeguard springs, rivers, lakes and coastline; protect aquifer recharge areas, ensure sufficient land to store and filter water and avert flooding; preserve key habitat; provide recreational opportunities; and maintain the natural beauty that underpins Florida’s appeal.
Indeed, Florida’s natural land makes the state livable — and worth living in.
To claim enough land is protected is ludicrous in a state where development forever alters the landscape daily.
Consider the Green Swamp, the second largest wetlands system in Florida after the Everglades. It is the source of the Hillsborough, Withlacoochee, Ocklawaha and Peace rivers. Beneath it is the highest point of the underground Floridan Aquifer, which provides much of the state drinking water. This, combined with the swamp’s relatively high elevation, helps prevent saltwater intrusion and maintains a healthy water supply.
In the 1970s, the Green Swamp was declared an Area of Critical State Concern. Even so, this resource so vital to the region’s water supply remains in jeopardy. In reality, the Green Swamp is not all marsh but a mix of flatwoods, hardwood forests, swamps, pastures and sandhills. Much of it could be developed. About 109,000 acres have been purchased, but scientists say an additional 160,000 need to be conserved to ensure that this hydrological wonder continues to properly function.
That won’t occur if, during the special session scheduled in June, lawmakers continue to refuse to adequately fund land acquisition and seek to divert Amendment 1 funds to other uses.
Amendment 1’s language does allow for other expenditures, including land management and restoration, which also deserve funding. But no one can read the amendment and not understand that conservation is the priority.
That lawmakers would so cavalierly dismiss Amendment 1’s clear instructions reveals a historic contempt for voters, the law and Florida’s natural heritage.
Read the story online:
http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-editorials/editorial-a-historical-contempt-for-voters-20150510/