We have two options for today, Dec. 7 - not quite the 70th anniversary of the day that will live in infamy. We can say something about Pearl Harbor, or, more current, we can muse on the fact that a record cold snap has hit South Florida. Why not both?
I forget the weather in Elmira, N.Y., that day when my father went to mass and my mother, listening to the radio, suddenly became all excited and began shouting, "We are at war!" I had just turned 5 but I already knew there was a war on. The English were fighting the Germans, and the kids in the neighborhood were divided. Some, who spoke English, were rooting for the Brits. Others, who did not speak German, were with the Nazis. Better uniforms. But somehow at that young age, I knew it did not affect us. Until my mother got excited.


Nobody around here seems to read The Miami Herald anymore, so we take the occasion to bring you up to speed on what you may have missed. On Sunday, Carl Hiaasen, the Herald’s star, on and off the newspaper pages, got off on Amendment 4. He did not exactly endorse it, but he gave an eloquent expression of the reasons so many people support it. The amendment will probably fail, and it should, because of unintended consequences, but the motive behind it could not be more valid. People are fed up with crooked politicians ignoring the will of the people when it comes to development.
When we say “crooked” we don’t necessarily mean money-crooked, in the sense of people taking flat out bribes such as we have seen in
There is no better local example of this than the fight between the First Presbyterian Church and its Colee Hammock neighbors. I have a dog in this fight; in fact, I am the dog in the fight because I live there. And I can say without fear of contradiction, that almost everybody who lives in this historic neighborhood is against the massive expansion of the church. There are some renters who may not care, and commercial property owners on Las Olas who want a massive building next to them, because then they can then go to the zoning board and say, in so many words, “You gave it to them, now I’m next. You gave them five stories. I only want ten.”
What makes this case so interesting is that many members of the church are opposed to the expansion. Only a few members live in Colee Hammock but they are among the most vocal opponents of their own church. Among them is Andy Costa, who is a member of the Session of the church. That’s a ruling body of about 25 people. Costa, who lives close to the church and is one of those whose property values will be most affected by the expansion, has made himself a pariah because of his opposition. He is convinced the fix is in. Fix is my term, not his. But not all the First Presbyterian members are happy. The church has never had a vote among its own members on this project. If they did, they might lose.
Says Costa: “There are certainly a lot of people who have withdrawn pledges. Many friends I have in the church have asked for money back. I just know for sure there are many people against it. The Session has chastised me for coming out and voicing my opinion. I am supposed to be silent, not profess my opposition, but I do it because it’s my right. Many people think the church doesn’t need this extra space to grow the ministry. I told them, I’m not your enemy. I begged them to get out of their seats and walk the neighborhood, to see what they are destroying. Nobody did it.”
If this sounds like anger, it’s exactly what Carl Hiaasen has sensed on a much broader level. Colee Hammock, which has people of wealth and smarts, is filled with signs rooting for Amendment 4. Many of the residents don’t think it is a good idea, but they are not tearing down signs. They are mad as hell. The politicians don’t seem to get it. But they will soon enough.
Some time back we described Amendment 4 as a bad idea whose time may have come. Upon reflection (and reflection is something scarce in this emotional debate) we amend our previous statement to say Amendment 4 is a bad idea in response to some bad zoning decisions. Despite understanding what motivates its proponents, we must admit this amendment’s time should never come. A lot of angry people, and some influential press types, are pushing the amendment, but we wonder how much reflection they have given the matter.
Land use and zoning are different animals. Zoning changes are the problem, not land use plans. We looked up some experts in land use and law, and got the views of people who know what they are talking about. In the words of one land use expert: “The constituency tends to mix them together, but they are distinctly different.” Now this is a man who gets involved in neighborhood zoning fights, where residents feel they are ignored by politicians approving development which harms their lifestyle. He is sympathetic to the little people, but says Amendment 4 will not solve the problem, and only put land use decisions in the hands of those whose backgrounds do not suit them for such decisions.
He sees a possible grave economic impact, and confusion and expense at the polling place if ballots are clogged with questions most people won’t understand, or even care about. This position echoes the business community fighting the amendment, even though our source disagrees with some of the zoning decisions made by politicians under the pressure of the same business community. He also adds that it would actually give cover to politicians who make the decisions that have led to this extraordinary movement.
The solution is at the ballot box, but not in the form of this amendment. It is the people we elect who are the problem. Politicians who champion neighborhoods in their campaign, but vote just the opposite when it comes to helping their developer buddies, are the real problem.
Forget Amendment 4. Throw the political bums out. They are responsible for their own dilemma.



