Some situations can only be described as bizarre.
When I sponsored the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act, the State Senator from the 22nd District was the Senate sponsor. The objective of the legislation was to complete the much needed beltway around Central Florida.
The legislation passed both chambers of the Florida Legislature and was signed into law by then Governor Jeb Bush in 2004. Since then, progress toward completion of the road has been torturously slow.
Recently, progress has begun anew. The Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority has increased revenue necessary to sell bonds in turn necessary to finance road construction. The collapse of the real estate boom has stalled increases in costs of land, materials and construction. The land purchases required by the Act have been completed.
In a stunning reversal that qualifies for “Ripley’s Believe It or Not,” the Senator that sponsored the legislation is now trying to stop or slow completion of the road.
The Senator is encouraging special interest groups to file suit to prevent the construction of the road. Usually one can shrug off these types of entreaties for a group to file a frivolous lawsuit. In the present matter, there is cause for concern. The Senator is closely aligned with the particular special interest groups he is pressing to file suit.
There is no basis in law for a suit to be filed. While that statement is reassuring, the only limit to a lawsuit is the filing fee.
Why would the sponsor of legislation encourage special interest groups to prevent the implementation of the law? That is difficult to rationalize. The only plausible explanation is the success we have had preventing the Department of Health (DoH) from implementing its onerous rule to require performance based treatment systems in the Wekiva Study Area.
From the very first public meeting where DoH explained its onerous rule, the State Senator has supported DoH in the implementation of the rule. The State Senator has seen opposition to the dreadful rule grow. During the last session of the Florida Legislature, the State Senator had to admit a defeat on the matter. One can only presume that the Senator cannot tolerate not getting his way.
The Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act does not require DoH to implement a rule regarding septic systems. The technology in the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act regarding onsite systems is now dated. The work of Dr. Martin Wanielista and Dr. Ni-Bin Chang of UCF are on the edge of perfecting passive septic system media that will be more effective and less expensive than those methods in the bill.
The following input from the Markham Woods Association is in response to Senator Constantine's request for same:
Letter_Senator Constantine_MWA
There are a number of constitutional amendments on the November ballot. This would be a good time to discuss those, and of course we must begin with Amendment one.
Amendment one is about two of most folks’ favorite topics: welfare and politicians. The topic is also known as public financing of political campaigns, but you stir a lot more emotions with “welfare for politicians”.
Public finance of political campaigns was embedded in Florida’s constitution. The Legislature was directed to enact the enabling legislation.
The theory was that in exchange for limits on their campaign spending candidates would receive an amount of taxpayer dollars.
The supposed purpose of the constitutional amendment was to level the playing field between well-funded and poorly-funded campaigns. On the positive side, in 1994 Comptroller Bob Milligan defeated 20-year incumbent Gerald Lewis when he used a small amount of public dollars to create a television campaign which must have helped.
Has the public finance of campaigns had an impact in Florida? Other than a clear impact in the 1994 Milligan-Lewis race, it is doubtful.
During my term in the Florida Legislature the spending limits were raised several times. The increases allowed candidates for state-wide office to keep up with the costs of campaigns, or at least spend more money and yet qualify for public funds.
Does the public campaign finance law limit campaign expenditures? The expenditure limit has been on candidates’ campaigns, not on the cost of campaigns. Section 527 groups (political organizations allowed under the Internal Revenue Code) spend a great deal of money on behalf of particular candidates without being limited by the public campaign finance law. The candidate’s campaign qualifies for the public dollars irrespective that the total expenditure on the candidate’s behalf greatly exceeds the limit.
Then there are the 2010 campaigns. At least two candidates running for state-wide office have spent huge amounts on their campaigns. The amounts they have spent greatly exceed the limit for the candidates to receive public financing but they clearly do not care. The candidates’ personal wealth and their willingness to spend it in order to be elected are awe-inspiring and perhaps even frightening.
Will the campaign expenditures by fabulously wealthy people who want to run our government cause Florida’s voters to reject Amendment one? I do not know, but I doubt it. It would be my position that voters are tired of government spending. I believe voters think some of the worst government expenditures are for political campaigns.
The text of the proposal is available on the Orange County Supervisor of Elections’ website here.