PANAMA CITY — Environmental groups across Florida are pushing for passage of Amendment 1 this November, a ballot measure that would dedicate funds to acquire and restore conservation lands, but those in opposition say appropriations should be left up to the state Legislature.
If approved by voters, Amendment 1 would mandate at least 33 percent of fees collected on real estate transactions, also known as “doc stamps,” be used to fund the state land acquisition program, Florida Forever, for the next two decades.
According to Florida’s Water and Land Legacy, the organization leading the campaign, the measure would siphon about $10 billion into the fund in that time frame.
--- VIDEO ---
The measure has been a top priority for the Bay County Audubon Society, which worked locally with other environmental groups to obtain signatures to petition the amendment on the ballot.
“This has been our primary goal for the last two years in Audubon, to get this amendment passed,” said local Audubon member Ron Houser. “It’s to provide a lasting legacy for our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren. We need to preserve a little bit of what’s left in Florida.”
The idea is not a new concept for Florida. The Legislature began allocating one-third of doc stamp revenue to land conservation efforts in 1968 but pulled back funds when the recession hit.
“The Legislature is refusing to reinstate that program to fund Florida Forever,” Houser said. “This is not a new tax; this is something that’s already being collected.”
Amendment 1 also is supported locally by the Bay County Conservancy (BCC), a nonprofit group formed in 1998 with a mission to preserve lands in the Northwest Florida area.
President Candis Harbison said while the conservancy is not an advocacy group, the amendment so closely reflected its mission, the organization decided to pledge its support.
“This particular amendment is so on target with our mission to conserve natural resource land we felt we had to support it,” Harbison said Monday at one of BCC’s conservation areas, the Audubon Nature Park on State Avenue in Panama City. “Our mission is strictly land conservation. It’s so important to preserve our watersheds.”
Harbison said the amendment also could help boost Florida’s biggest industry.
“Tourism is our number one industry in Florida,” Harbison said. “If we want to protect our most important industry, we have to preserve our natural resources.”
Opposition
While poll data shows Amendment 1 is likely to pass, a measure that would require 60 percent of voters’ approval, the amendment is not without opposition.
Leading the charge is the Florida Chamber of Commerce, which says the amendment stifles elected leaders’ ability to govern and ties hands in the event of a future economic crisis.
Chamber Vice President David Hart also questioned the repercussions if other special interest groups followed suit.
“Imagine, if every group that wasn’t satisfied with the amount of funding their special program got during the recession decided to do a constitutional amendment and mandate a certain amount of spending, how impossible it would be to balance our state budget?” Hart said in a statement issued by the chamber earlier this year.
Other opponents of Amendment 1 include Sen. President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, who said Monday he applauds the objectives of the measure but is troubled by the forced constitutional amendment.
--- VIDEO ---
“I’m skeptical of a constitutional mandate that forces the Legislature to spend $700 million a year — whether that amount is the correct amount or not — in taking land out of private hands and undertaking other environmental projects,” Gaetz said. “This amendment has been expertly sugar-coated as an environmentally friendly initiative, and it will pass without much real examination by voters.”
Referencing the economic crisis Florida faced about five years ago, Gaetz said the appropriation is something that could be revisited by the Legislature.
“We all had to make cuts in some areas in order to keep the most vital services open,” he said. “If you have a constitutional mandate to spend a specific amount of money or a specific percentage of money on one issue, that crowds out the other priorities that the state faces.”