California Housing Crisis Shows Why Proposal 23 Is Bad For Florida
Don’t Let This Happen in Florida
Recently, a FOX News report detailed the self-inflicted crisis facing California’s housing market. This report shows how California’s much needed housing developments are greatly delayed by lengthy environmental litigation, which is what Proposal 23 before the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) will allow.
The Florida Chamber of Commerce opposes CRC Proposal 23 because it creates a series of new and ambiguous rights, and creates a new cause of action for any person to sue any party, public or private, for violating these new undefined rights. The Florida Chamber urges that you call the CRC Judicial Committee today at (850) 717-9550 and tell them to vote against Proposal 23.
More from the FOX News report:
“NIMBYism has now become a tool for special interests to stop projects,” Rita Brandin said in the FOX News report. “There’s an anti-growth attitude that really creates this roadblock to providing homes and that is creating a disparity. We are leaving out our working class who have to commute hours, sometimes two hours beyond our borders, to work in our city.”
Read the full story to see how ligation has hijacked California’s economy.
Take Action Now
Contact the CRC Judicial Committee today at (850) 717-9550 and urge them to vote against the extreme Proposal 23.
Florida Chamber Presents Opposition to CRC Proposal, Argues it is a Solution in Search of a Problem
On November 28, 2017, during a presentation before members of the Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) Judicial Committee, the Florida Chamber of Commerce said Proposal 23 is a solution in search of a problem. As outlined in a Florida Chamber Staff Analysis, Proposal 23 calls for creating a series of new and ambiguous rights, and creating a new cause of action for any person to sue – public or private – for violating these undefined rights. The excessive burdens it would create on businesses, as well as the additional legal liability it would place on job creators, are among the many flaws this proposal carries.
“While we disagree with the approach of the proposal, we appreciate the awareness being brought to the issue. The Florida Chamber believes that science must drive environmental public policy decisions, and that it is imperative we protect our natural environment for future generations. However, in addition to being an unnecessary addition to our state’s constitution, we remain concerned that this proposal’s ambiguity will hamper Florida’s future economic growth while unleashing a bevy of needless lawsuits.”
– Frank Walker
Vice President of Governmental Affairs, Florida Chamber of Commerce
According to the Florida Chamber, Proposal 23:
- Can be addressed through Florida’s existing regulatory structure,
- Will create ambiguity, spawning more lawsuits, clogging our courts and further tarnishing Florida’s already bottom five legal climate, and
- Similar proposals have made other states less competitive.
The panel of Florida Chamber legislative advocates and partners presenting the opposition viewpoint on behalf of the Florida Chamber included:
- Frank Walker, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, Florida Chamber
- Ryan Matthews, Former Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Chamber legislative advocate and Attorney, Peebles, Smith & Matthews
- David Childs, Florida Chamber legislative advocate and Attorney, Hopping Green & Sams
- William Large, President, Florida Justice Reform Institute
The following resources regarding the Florida Chamber’s opposition are available:
- Letter of opposition sent October 17 when the proposal was initially filed
- Staff Analysis
- Florida Justice Reform Institute White Paper
BE THE FIRST TO KNOW:
Get the latest news and information on proposals being heard by Florida’s once-every-20-years Constitution Revision Commission. Email Chris Emmanuel at firstname.lastname@example.org to add your name.
Florida Chamber Staff Analysis: Proposal 23 Has Several Fatal Flaws
Proposal 23 is one of the six public proposals that have been taken up by members of the Constitution Revision Commission. This proposal creates a series of new and ambiguous rights. The relevant portion of the proposal is as follows: “Every person has a right to a clean and healthful environment, including clean air and water, control of pollution, and the conservation and restoration of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment as provided by law. Any person many enforce this right against any party, public or private, subject to reasonable limitations, as provided by law.”