 |
| I have been asked to add the ballot measure language to this Thursday's BCC agenda, which I am inclined to do, so we can vote yes or no, up or down, as to whether or not we will go through the process to add this question to the ballot... |
For the last 6 months we have been lobbied to add a referendum to our ballot regarding Pensacola Beach-specifically the question about public or private ownership of the beach. Our meetings have been flooded with requests that we let the people weigh-in on this request at the ballot box. I have met with this group individually in my office, and I have heard them speak at the meeting (s). Last Wednesday, I received this email....
This, below, is the language that we will discuss this Thursday. I have no idea the appetite my counterparts will have for this--but at least we will have it on the table for, hopefully, an up or down vote one way or the other on the question of whether or not we want to add this to the ballot and let the citizens weigh-in on this topic.
I have no doubt of the good intentions of those people who want to permanently preserve the unbuilt portions of Pensacola Beach/Santa Rosa Island with the proposed ballot initiative. However, have they thought about what would happen if they "lose" at the ballot box? Would a loss be binding on the BCC and the SRIA? Would the BCC and/or the SRIA then take this as an opportunity to sell off portions of the island for more development? Talk about unintended consequences! It seems to me that the proposal you recently posted that would "permanently" protect and preserve (unless overridden by a unanimous vote of the BCC) the unbuilt upon portions of Pensacola Beach would be a stronger and less risky path than the voter referendum.
ReplyDelete