2024 Libertarian Party Voter Guide for Doral Florida Referendum and State Amendments – Image shows the title of the voter guide with '2024 LPMD Voter Guide' text.
Special Thanks to Suzanne Gilmore
Navigating the ballot can be complex, especially when it involves state constitutional amendments and local referendums. This referendum voter guide for Doral, Florida, specifically for the 2024 general election, aims to clarify the choices you’ll face. Understanding each amendment and referendum is crucial for making informed decisions that impact not only your community in Doral but also the wider state of Florida. This guide provides a breakdown of each ballot measure, offering insights to help you cast your vote with confidence.
For detailed information and sample ballots, you can refer to the official Miami-Dade County Elections Department resources:
https://www.miamidade.gov/elections/library/sample-ballots/2024-11-05-general-election-sample-ballot.pdf
https://www.miamidade.gov/elections/library/sample-ballots/2024-11-05-municipal-elections-sample-ballots.pdf
Florida State Constitutional Amendments
Note: State constitutional amendments require a 60% supermajority vote for approval.
Florida Amendment 1, Partisan School Board Elections Amendment
Ballot Title: Partisan School Board Elections Amendment
Subject: This amendment proposes to make school board elections partisan starting in 2026. Candidates would run in partisan primaries and be identified on the general election ballot with party affiliations like “Democrat” or “Republican.” Currently, Florida school board elections are nonpartisan under the state constitution. [1]
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Given the increasing politicization of education, with partisan ideologies influencing curricula and school policies, it’s essential for voters to know the partisan leanings of school board candidates. Partisan labels will provide transparency, allowing voters to understand the potential direction candidates might take regarding education and indoctrination within schools.
Florida Amendment 2, Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment
Ballot Title: Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment
Subject: Amendment 2 aims to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Florida. It declares hunting and fishing as the preferred methods for wildlife management and control, to be preserved as a public right forever.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: Florida Statutes already protect the right to hunt and fish. Elevating this to a ‘public right’ in the constitution could have unintended negative consequences. The term ‘public right’ is not limited to Florida residents, potentially opening Florida waters to large-scale foreign commercial fishing operations. Furthermore, similar amendments in other states have led to increased instances of hunters trespassing on private land, emboldened by the perceived constitutional right.
Florida Amendment 3, The Marijuana Legalization Initiative
Ballot Title: Marijuana Legalization Initiative
Subject: Amendment 3 seeks to legalize recreational marijuana for adults aged 21 and older. It would permit individuals to possess up to three ounces of marijuana (approximately 85 grams), including up to five grams of concentrate. Existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers would be authorized to sell marijuana for adult recreational use.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: While the ideal scenario involves less regulation and taxation, legalizing recreational marijuana is a significant step towards dismantling the harmful “War on Drugs.” Amendment 3 would substantially reduce the impact of federal prohibition that criminalizes cannabis consumption, including home cultivation.
Florida Amendment 4, Right to Abortion Initiative
Ballot Title: Right to Abortion Initiative
Subject: Amendment 4 would add language to the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights to prevent laws that “prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” It would maintain the current constitutional provision for parental notification for minors seeking abortion.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Florida’s current 6-week abortion ban is effectively a near-total ban, impacting even cases of rape or when the mother’s life is at risk. Enforcing such a ban would require intrusive surveillance of personal movements and finances. There’s even a concerning trend to criminalize interstate travel for legal abortions. Amendment 4 offers a necessary check against extreme abortion restrictions, supported by a broad political spectrum, including former President Trump and Florida Democrats, who recognize the current policy as overly restrictive.
Florida Amendment 5, Annual Inflation Adjustment for Homestead Property Tax Exemption Value Amendment
Ballot Title: Annual Inflation Adjustment for Homestead Property Tax Exemption Value Amendment
Subject: This amendment proposes annual inflation adjustments to the homestead property tax exemption value for non-school taxes. Adjustments, based on the Consumer Price Index, would occur each January 1st if the CPI change is positive. This is in addition to existing residential property tax exemptions.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: Tax exemptions like this do not address the root issue of excessive government spending, which is the primary driver of high taxation. Instead, such exemptions shift the tax burden onto other property owners, ultimately affecting market prices and negating the intended benefits of the exemption for everyone.
Florida Amendment 6, Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns Amendment
Ballot Title: Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns Amendment
Subject: Amendment 6 aims to repeal Section 7 of Article VI of the Florida Constitution, which provides public campaign financing for statewide candidates who agree to spending limits.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: The Republican-led legislature initiated this amendment to eliminate a program designed to create a more level playing field in elections. This program helps candidates without corporate or special interest backing compete with those who have significant financial advantages. While ideally, tax dollars shouldn’t fund initiatives individuals disagree with, this program protects crucial electoral and voting rights and should be maintained to signal the need for greater, not fewer, protections in this area. Voting against Amendment 6 is a way to send this message within the current political framework.
Miami-Dade County and Doral Municipal Referendums
Note: Municipal ballot questions require a simple majority (50%+1%) vote to pass.
Miami-Dade County Area
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY – Should Miami-Dade County take action to expand free public Wi-Fi access countywide?
Ballot Title: Should Miami-Dade County take action to expand free public Wi-Fi access countywide?
Subject: This is a non-binding straw ballot question about expanding free public Wi-Fi access across Miami-Dade County, including advocating for state or federal law changes if needed.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: With widespread internet access via cell phones, this initiative appears to be an unnecessary and potentially wasteful government project. It proposes using taxpayer funds for “free” public Wi-Fi, which is likely to become a costly and inefficient endeavor.
BAL HARBOUR REFERENDUM – Shall Miami-Dade County levy a homeless and domestic abuse tax in Bal Harbour?
Ballot Title: Shall Miami-Dade County levy a homeless and domestic abuse tax in Bal Harbour?
Subject: This referendum proposes a new 1% local option sales tax in Bal Harbour on sales of food, beverages, and alcoholic drinks at establishments licensed to sell alcohol for on-site consumption with gross annual sales over $400,000, excluding hotels and motels.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: We oppose new sales taxes. This tax specifically targets sales at Bal Harbour Shops, a major shopping destination. Since existing county-level programs already receive tax funding for similar purposes, this new tax is likely to be misdirected or used for unspecified purposes. It could also inadvertently attract more homeless individuals to the area.
Cutler Bay Referendums
CUTLER BAY REFERENDUM 1 – Town Charter Amendment Regarding Public Engagement
Ballot Title: Town Charter Amendment Regarding Public Engagement
Subject: This proposes amending Section 3.11 of the Cutler Bay Town Charter to mandate the Town Manager to engage with the public of all ages on town matters through various communication channels, including traditional and online media, community events, and town hall meetings.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: Currently, Section 3.11 limits the Town Manager’s actions to those authorized and budgeted by the Town Council. This amendment, intended to grant the Town Manager more autonomy, makes an already convoluted charter section even more complex. It could lead to increased staffing and higher taxes. This is not a beneficial change.
CUTLER BAY REFERENDUM 2 – Town Charter Amendment Regarding Environmental Stewardship
Ballot Title: Town Charter Amendment Regarding Environmental Stewardship
Subject: This charter referendum seeks to amend Section 3.11 to require the Town Manager to periodically review environmental protection regulations and recommend amendments to promote responsible environmental stewardship.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: While seemingly redundant with the previous referendum, this amendment specifically expands the Town Manager’s duties related to environmental stewardship. The current charter section already mentions reducing paper use and the town’s carbon footprint. This amendment reinforces and clarifies the Town Manager’s role in this area.
Doral Referendums
DORAL REFERENDUM 1 – Clarify Form of Government
Ballot Title: Clarify Form of Government
Subject: This referendum aims to amend the Doral City Charter to clarify that the city has a “Council-Manager” form of government, changing it from the current “Mayor-Council-Manager” description. This does not eliminate the position of Mayor.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Many well-run cities operate under a “council-manager” system where a professional administrator handles daily operations, including hiring and firing, under contract and free from political interference. Doral currently operates with a “strong mayor” system where the elected mayor is also the chief executive. Shifting to a council-manager structure increases accountability and reduces the potential for abuse of public funds often associated with strong mayor systems.
DORAL REFERENDUM 2 – Revised Process for Creating Committees
Ballot Title: Revised Process for Creating Committees
Subject: This referendum seeks to change how city committees are created. Instead of the Mayor creating and appointing committees (subject to Council approval), the Council would organize itself into committees and appoint members.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: This amendment aims to decentralize power from the Mayor and give the Council more direct control over policy-making committees and quasi-judicial boards. Currently, a strong mayor system allows the mayor to appoint loyalists to key committees. This change empowers the Council to play a more active role in governance.
DORAL REFERENDUM 3 – Council Authorization Required for Mayor’s Dealings with Governmental Entities
Ballot Title: Council Authorization Required for Mayor’s Dealings with Governmental Entities
Subject: This proposes amending the Charter to require Council authorization for any official action or position taken by the Mayor in dealings with other governmental entities. Currently, the Mayor is the sole official representative of the City.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: This referendum further limits the Mayor’s unilateral authority by requiring Council approval for city agreements with other governmental bodies. This ensures greater oversight and prevents the Mayor from entering into agreements without Council consent.
DORAL REFERENDUM 4 – Requirement for Break in Service for Mayor Seeking Councilmember Position
Ballot Title: Requirement for Break in Service for Mayor Seeking Councilmember Position
Subject: This amendment would require a former Mayor who has served two consecutive terms to be out of office for four years before being eligible to run for a Councilmember position. Currently, term-limited Mayors can immediately run for Council.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: This change introduces term limits for the Mayor position, similar to Councilmembers. It prevents Mayors from circumventing term limits by immediately seeking a Council seat, promoting fresh perspectives and limiting entrenched power.
DORAL REFERENDUM 5 – Freeze and Cap on Mayor and Councilmember Compensation
Ballot Title: Freeze and Cap on Mayor and Councilmember Compensation
Subject: This referendum proposes to cap the Mayor’s salary at the current level of $77,587 and set Councilmember compensation at 30% less than the Mayor’s salary, which is $54,310.90. It also eliminates future automatic salary increases based on the Urban CPI.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: This amendment freezes and caps the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers, preventing automatic increases. Given that these are full-time positions, freezing salaries is a responsible measure for taxpayer savings and fiscal prudence.
DORAL REFERENDUM 6 – Revised Process for Appointment of City Manager
Ballot Title: Revised Process for Appointment of City Manager
Subject: This referendum proposes to align the process for appointing the City Manager with that of the City Attorney and City Clerk. The Council would select the City Manager based on recommendations from a search committee.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: If Referendum 1 passes and Doral transitions to a council-manager government, this amendment becomes essential. It ensures the Council has the authority to hire a professional City Manager by implementing a structured selection process involving a search committee, similar to how other key city officers are appointed.
DORAL REFERENDUM 7 – Revised Process for Appointment of Members to City Boards and Agencies
Ballot Title: Revised Process for Appointment of Members to City Boards and Agencies (“Boards”)
Subject: This referendum proposes changing the appointment process for city boards. Instead of the Mayor solely appointing board members (subject to Council approval), both the Mayor and individual Councilmembers would each appoint one member to each five-member board.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Complementary to Referendum 1, this amendment further distributes appointment power. By allowing both the Mayor and Councilmembers to appoint board members, it reduces mayoral control over city boards and agencies, fostering a more balanced representation and decision-making process.
DORAL REFERENDUM 8 – Elimination of Run-off Elections
Ballot Title: Elimination of Run-off Elections
Subject: This referendum proposes to eliminate run-off elections in Doral, except in cases of a tie vote. Candidates receiving the most votes would be elected, even without a majority.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: While run-off elections are costly, taxpayer-funded exercises in democracy, eliminating them could lead to elected officials being chosen without majority support. This could disenfranchise a significant portion of voters and lead to representatives who do not have broad community backing.
DORAL REFERENDUM 9 – Replace Office of Charter Enforcement with an Office of Inspector General
Ballot Title: Replace Office of Charter Enforcement with an Office of Inspector General
Subject: This referendum proposes to replace the Office of Charter Enforcement with an independent Office of Inspector General. This new office would investigate, audit, and oversee city operations, contracts, programs, and expenditures to prevent fraud, waste, mismanagement, and abuse of power.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Increased transparency and independent oversight are crucial for good governance. An Office of Inspector General, operating independently from political influence, will enhance public trust and accountability by providing objective review and transparency of city operations. Similar structures have proven successful in other cities and counties like Miami and Broward County.
Miami Referendums
Miami Referendum 1 – Charter Amendment to Require Continuous Residency for Candidates
Ballot Title: Charter Amendment to Require Continuous Residency Immediately Preceding Qualifying for Mayor and City Commissioner
Subject: This amendment would require candidates for Mayor and City Commissioner in Miami to have resided continuously in their district (for Commissioners) or the City (for Mayor) for at least one year immediately before qualifying for the election.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Requiring a one-year residency period is a reasonable measure to ensure candidates have a genuine connection to and understanding of the community they seek to represent.
Miami Referendum 2 – Charter Amendment: Partial Conveyance for Revised Development at 1111 Parrot Jungle Trail on Watson Island
Ballot Title: Charter Amendment: Partial Conveyance for Revised Development at 1111 Parrot Jungle Trail on Watson Island
Subject: This charter amendment would authorize the sale and/or lease of 5.4 acres on Watson Island to Ecoresiliency Miami LLC for residential and commercial uses at fair market value ($135,000,000), waiving bidding, and requiring: 1) Returning 13 acres to the City for a new public waterfront park, 2) Canceling an existing theme park and hotel lease, and 3) Contributing $15,000,000 for affordable housing, infrastructure, and other public benefits.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Private development on Watson Island is beneficial as it has remained underutilized under public ownership. This amendment facilitates development while also securing public benefits like a new waterfront park and contributions to affordable housing and infrastructure.
Miami Referendum 3 – Charter Amendment to Revise Mixed-Use Leases on Watson Island
Ballot Title: Charter Amendment to Revise Mixed-Use Leases on Watson Island
Subject: This amendment proposes revising existing leases at 888 MacArthur Causeway, selling 3.2 acres of leased property to the tenant for fair market value (not less than $25,000,000), reducing overall development, extending the lease term by 24 years, waiving bidding, and authorizing: 1) $9,000,000 contribution to affordable housing and infrastructure improvements, 2) Timeshare units to become condominiums, 3) Mixed-uses to include office space, and 4) Expanded public waterfront and pedestrian promenade along Biscayne Bay.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Similar to Referendum 2, this amendment supports private development on Watson Island, which has been underutilized. It encourages development while securing public benefits such as affordable housing contributions and an expanded waterfront promenade.
Miami Referendum 4 – Charter Amendment to Change Runoff Date
Ballot Title: Charter Amendment to Change Runoff Date to Allow More Time Between General and Runoff Election
Subject: This amendment would change the date of runoff elections for Miami Mayor and City Commissioners from the third Tuesday after the first Monday in November to the second Tuesday in December in odd-numbered years, allowing more time for the Miami-Dade Elections Department to prepare.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Increasing the time between general and runoff elections from two to four weeks is a practical adjustment that provides the Miami-Dade Elections Department with necessary time to prepare for runoff elections, which are common in Miami.
Miami Beach Referendums
Miami Beach Referendum 1 – Charter’s “Citizens’ Bill of Rights”: Amending Existing Rights, Incorporating County Ethics Commission’s Enforcement
Ballot Title: Charter’s “Citizens’ Bill of Rights”: Amending Existing Rights, Incorporating County Ethics Commission’s Enforcement
Subject: This referendum proposes amending Miami Beach’s “Citizens’ Bill of Rights” and incorporating enforcement by the County Ethics Commission.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Miami Beach has a strong ethics code, and this amendment strengthens it by improving enforcement mechanisms, which is a positive step for accountability and transparency.
Miami Beach Referendum 2 – Charter’s “Citizens’ Bill of Rights”: Amending Circuit Court Forfeiture Remedy
Ballot Title: Charter’s “Citizens’ Bill of Rights”: Amending Circuit Court Forfeiture Remedy
Subject: This amendment would amend the Circuit Court Forfeiture Remedy within the Charter’s “Citizens’ Bill of Rights.”
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: This change aims to give courts more flexibility in handling public corruption cases, allowing for a more nuanced approach that considers the severity of offenses and encourages civil enforcement.
Miami Beach Referendum 3 – Charter Section 1.03: Sale/Lease of City property; right-of-way vacations; management/concession agreements
Ballot Title: Charter Section 1.03: Sale/Lease of City property; right-of-way vacations; management/concession agreements
Subject: This referendum concerns Charter Section 1.03 related to the sale/lease of city property, right-of-way vacations, and management/concession agreements.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: This proposal aims to improve the review process for real estate deals, development agreements, and vendor contracts involving city property before they are presented for voter approval, enhancing due diligence and informed decision-making.
Miami Beach Referendum 4 – Election of City Commission: Moving City’s Runoff Election Date, Installation/Term Commencement, Conforming Office Terms
Ballot Title: Election of City Commission: Moving City’s Runoff Election Date, Installation/Term Commencement, Conforming Office Terms
Subject: This referendum proposes moving the city’s runoff election date, adjusting installation and term commencement dates, and conforming office terms for City Commission elections.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Similar to Miami Referendum 4, this amendment extends the time between general and runoff elections from two to four weeks, providing necessary preparation time for the election department in Miami Beach, where runoffs are frequent.
Miami Beach Referendum 5 – Amend Charter Section 2.05: Public Hearings and Public Notice for Ordinances
Ballot Title: Amend Charter Section 2.05: Public Hearings and Public Notice for Ordinances
Subject: This referendum proposes amending Charter Section 2.05 to require two public hearings instead of one for proposed City ordinances.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Requiring two public hearings for city ordinances enhances transparency and public input, allowing for more thorough consideration and community involvement in local legislation.
Miami Beach Referendum 6 – Charter Section 2.07: “Vacancies in City Commission”
Ballot Title: Charter Section 2.07: “Vacancies in City Commission”
Subject: This referendum concerns Charter Section 2.07 regarding vacancies in the City Commission.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: The proposed charter change could potentially avoid special elections for filling four-year terms if appointments are made within 30 days. This raises concerns about potential abuse and reduced democratic accountability by limiting the opportunity for voter input in filling vacancies.
Miami Beach Referendum 7 – Charter Amendments: Clarifying and Conforming Certain Charter Language
Ballot Title: Charter Amendments: Clarifying and Conforming Certain Charter Language to Applicable Laws and/or Current Usage
Subject: This referendum proposes clarifying and conforming certain Charter language to applicable laws and current usage.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: This is a beneficial update to the charter, clarifying the one-year residency requirement for candidates and filing requirements for qualifying by petition. Other changes are minor and non-substantive, contributing to overall clarity and legal compliance.
Miami Beach Referendum 8 – Approve 1% Tax on Food and Beverage Sales for Homeless Assistance / Domestic Violence Centers
Ballot Title: Approve 1% Tax on Food and Beverage Sales for Homeless Assistance / Domestic Violence Centers
Subject: This referendum proposes a new 1% tax on food and beverage sales to fund homeless assistance and domestic violence centers.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: This is another instance of a new tax disguised as a well-intentioned measure. Such taxes can have unintended consequences and may not effectively address the root causes of homelessness and domestic violence. It could also set a precedent for similar taxes in the future.
Miami Gardens Referendum
Miami Gardens Referendum – Waiver Of City Manager Residency Requirement
Ballot Title: Waiver Of City Manager Residency Requirement And Defining Distance Beyond City Boundaries Upon Good Cause
Subject: This referendum proposes waiving the City Manager residency requirement and defining distance beyond city boundaries upon good cause.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Expanding the pool of qualified candidates for City Manager by waiving the residency requirement is likely to benefit taxpayers by allowing the city to recruit the most capable administrators, regardless of their current place of residence. While residency requirements aim to ensure local understanding, they can also limit the talent pool.
Miami Springs Referendum
Miami Springs Referendum – Four-Year Staggered Terms of Office and November Elections
Ballot Title: Four-Year Staggered Terms of Office and November Elections
Subject: This proposed Charter amendment would transition the terms for Mayor and Council to four-year, staggered terms with elections held in November of even-numbered years.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: While four-year terms and November elections might align with general election cycles, the transition to staggered terms could disrupt local governance and potentially reduce accountability by lengthening the time between elections for specific seats.
North Bay Village Referendums
North Bay Village Referendum 1 – Public Notice Requirements
Ballot Title: Public Notice Requirements
Subject: This proposal asks to lower the standard for public notice by allowing the city to rely on its website instead of newspapers of circulation.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: Relying solely on the city’s website for public notices is less transparent and accessible than using newspapers of general circulation. This change could reduce public awareness of important city matters and is open to potential abuse by limiting public access to information.
North Bay Village Referendum 2 – Employees Of The Village Clerk’s Office
Ballot Title: Employees Of The Village Clerk’s Office
Subject: This referendum clarifies that the Village Clerk is responsible for all personnel within the Clerk’s office and answers to the commission.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Clarifying the Village Clerk’s authority over their office personnel and their reporting structure to the commission promotes efficient administration and accountability within the Clerk’s office.
North Bay Village Referendum 3 – Continuous Residency Requirement
Ballot Title: Continuous Residency Requirement
Subject: This referendum proposes a one-year continuous residency requirement for local office candidates in North Bay Village.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Similar to Miami Referendum 1, a one-year residency requirement is reasonable for ensuring candidates are familiar with and committed to the community they wish to serve.
North Bay Village Referendum 4 – Qualifying Period
Ballot Title: Qualifying Period
Subject: This proposal seeks to set a 10-day window for qualifying for local office in the village charter, replacing a potentially shorter qualifying period.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Establishing a 10-day qualifying period provides a reasonable timeframe for candidates to prepare and file for local office, ensuring a fair and accessible process.
North Bay Village Referendum 5 – Single Family Property
Ballot Title: Single Family Property
Subject: This referendum proposes restricting land use and future development of single-family properties to single-family residential usage.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: Restricting land use to single-family residential only limits property rights and potentially hinders development and diversification within North Bay Village. It could also artificially inflate housing costs and limit housing options.
North Bay Village Referendum 6 – Limit On Village Debt
Ballot Title: Limit On Village Debt
Subject: This proposal would make it easier for North Bay Village to incur debt to finance capital improvement funds.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: Increasing the ease with which North Bay Village can take on debt is fiscally irresponsible. Public debt places a burden on taxpayers across generations. This proposal opens the door to potential financial mismanagement and increased taxpayer liabilities.
North Bay Village Referendum 7 – Charter Non-Substantive And Technical Updates
Ballot Title: Charter Non-Substantive And Technical Updates
Subject: This referendum proposes amending the Village Charter to remove obsolete sections, resolve conflicts with state law, and make other non-substantive changes.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Updating the Village Charter to remove outdated or conflicting sections and make non-substantive technical updates is a necessary housekeeping measure to ensure the charter remains relevant, legally compliant, and easy to understand.
Pinecrest Referendums
Pinecrest Referendum 1 – Separate Consecutive Term Limits for Mayor and Councilmember
Ballot Title: Separate Consecutive Term Limits for Mayor and Councilmember
Subject: This referendum proposes separate consecutive term limits for Mayor and Councilmember positions in Pinecrest.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: While intended to allow the current mayor to potentially seek consecutive terms as a councilmember, requiring a two-year break in service for both Mayor and Councilmember positions is beneficial for ensuring fresh perspectives and preventing entrenched power, even in a manager-council form of government like Pinecrest.
Pinecrest Referendum 2 – Partial Terms of Office of Less Than Two Years
Ballot Title: Partial Terms of Office of Less Than Two Years
Subject: This referendum addresses term limits for partial terms of office less than two years.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: This is a reasonable compromise regarding term limits. It ensures that individuals filling partial terms of less than two years are not unduly penalized by term limit restrictions when seeking future full terms, encouraging qualified individuals to serve even for shorter periods.
Pinecrest Referendum 3 – Calculating Consecutive Term Limits When There is a Gap in Service
Ballot Title: Calculating Consecutive Term Limits When There is a Gap in Service
Subject: This referendum proposes a change in calculating consecutive term limits when there is a gap in service.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: Reducing the required gap in service for term limits to just six months (180 days) undermines the purpose of term limits. A gap of this short duration, still within the same budget year, is insufficient to ensure meaningful turnover and fresh perspectives in office. Most effective term limit policies require at least a two-year break in service.
Pinecrest Referendum 4 – Method of Filling Vacancies in Office
Ballot Title: Method of Filling Vacancies in Office
Subject: This referendum pertains to the method of filling vacancies in office, specifically addressing special elections for mayoral or full council vacancies.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Establishing a mechanism for special elections to fill mayoral or full council vacancies is essential for maintaining democratic representation. Without such a mechanism, the alternative could be direct gubernatorial appointments without further voter input, which is less desirable.
Pinecrest Referendum 5 – Non-Substantive Technical Updates to Charter Relating to Elections Timelines
Ballot Title: Non-Substantive Technical Updates to Charter Relating to Elections Timelines
Subject: This referendum proposes non-substantive technical updates to the Charter related to election timelines.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Making non-substantive technical updates to election timelines is a routine and necessary administrative adjustment to ensure the charter reflects current practices and legal requirements.
South Miami Referendums
South Miami Referendum 1 – Enactment of purchasing limitations by ordinance of the City Commission
Ballot Title: Enactment of purchasing limitations by ordinance of the City Commission
Subject: This referendum proposes allowing the City Commission to set purchasing limitations for the city manager and departments by ordinance.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Granting the City Commission the authority to determine purchasing limitations by ordinance provides greater flexibility and oversight over city spending. It allows the elected commission to set appropriate limits based on current needs and circumstances.
South Miami Referendum 2 – Four-year term of office for City Mayor
Ballot Title: Four-year term of office for City Mayor
Subject: This referendum proposes amending the Charter to set the Mayor’s term to four years, consistent with City Commissioners’ terms, starting with the 2026 South Miami General Election. Currently, the Mayor serves a two-year term.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Extending the Mayor’s term to four years provides greater stability and continuity in leadership. Aligning the Mayor’s term with Commissioners’ terms simplifies election cycles and potentially reduces the frequency of mayoral elections.
South Miami Referendum 3 – Bond referendum for improvements, infrastructure and property for Parks/Recreation, Public Works and Public Safety
Ballot Title: Bond referendum for improvements, infrastructure and property for Parks/Recreation, Public Works and Public Safety
Subject: This is a bond referendum for improvements, infrastructure, and property for Parks/Recreation, Public Works, and Public Safety.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: We oppose new taxes. Bond referendums often lead to increased taxes to repay the debt incurred. While the stated purposes are for public benefit, it’s crucial to prioritize fiscal responsibility and avoid unnecessary debt.
Surfside Referendums
Surfside Referendum 1 – Residential uses on Lots between Collins and Harding Avenues
Ballot Title: Residential uses on Lots between Collins and Harding Avenues
Subject: This referendum proposes amending the Charter to limit residential uses on lots between Collins and Harding Avenues to detached, single-family, multi-family, and townhomes only, unless approved by unanimous Commission vote and a minimum 60% vote of electors, which is overly restrictive.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: This amendment is overly restrictive, limiting residential development options and requiring supermajority votes for exceptions. Such limitations can stifle development, reduce property rights, and potentially inflate housing costs.
Surfside Referendum 2 – Residential uses on Lots West of Harding Avenue
Ballot Title: Residential uses on Lots West of Harding Avenue
Subject: This referendum is similar to Referendum 1, applying the same restrictive residential use limitations to lots west of Harding Avenue.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: For the same reasons as Referendum 1, this amendment is overly restrictive and undesirable, limiting development options and requiring supermajority votes for exceptions.
Surfside Referendum 3 – Prohibition of Lot Subdivision
Ballot Title: Prohibition of Lot Subdivision
Subject: This referendum proposes prohibiting lot subdivision in Surfside.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: Prohibiting lot subdivision is an overly restrictive measure that limits property owners’ rights and potentially hinders development and property value appreciation. It reduces flexibility in land use and development.
Surfside Referendum 4 – Ensuring Collection of Obligations due to the Town
Ballot Title: Ensuring Collection of Obligations due to the Town
Subject: This referendum aims to ensure the collection of obligations due to the Town by eliminating the Commission’s ability to extend, reduce, waive, or forgive code enforcement liens.
YES/NO: NO
Reasoning: While ensuring collection of debts is important, completely eliminating the Commission’s flexibility to address code enforcement liens in specific circumstances is too rigid. There may be legitimate reasons for extending, reducing, or waiving liens in certain cases, and removing this discretion is undesirable.
Surfside Referendum 5 – Amendment Prohibiting Development and Construction of Structures Within Point Lake
Ballot Title: Amendment Prohibiting Development and Construction of Structures Within Point Lake
Subject: This amendment proposes prohibiting the development and construction of structures within Point Lake, North Canal, and South Canal, except for marine structures for private recreational or leisure purposes accessory to upland waterfront single-family homes.
YES/NO: Not enough info, leaning NO
Reasoning: Without sufficient information about the specific context and potential impacts of this amendment, it’s difficult to make a definitive recommendation. However, broad prohibitions on development can be problematic. Unless there are compelling environmental or public interest reasons, restricting development within these water bodies may be overly restrictive. Leaning NO due to potential overreach.
West Miami Referendums
West Miami Referendum 1 – Amending Charter Article III, Section 3.03 electing commissioners by separate city-wide seats
Ballot Title: Amending Charter Article III, Section 3.03 electing commissioners by separate city-wide seats
Subject: This referendum proposes amending the Charter to elect commissioners by separate city-wide seats, with each elector casting one vote per seat. The Vice-Mayor would be designated by the Commission.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Electing commissioners to separate city-wide seats can improve representation by encouraging commissioners to focus on specific areas while still being accountable to the entire city. This system can lead to a more balanced and effective city government.
West Miami Referendum 2 – Amending City Charter to change Mayor’s term of office to a four-year term
Ballot Title: Amending City Charter to change Mayor’s term of office to a four-year term
Subject: This referendum proposes amending the City Charter to change the Mayor’s term of office to a four-year term.
YES/NO: YES
Reasoning: Similar to South Miami Referendum 2, extending the Mayor’s term to four years creates a more formal and stable mayoral office directly elected by voters, rather than elected from within the commission, promoting stronger leadership and continuity.
