To the Editor:

I am writing to express my disappointment in your biased and one-sided coverage of the Florida Hometown Democracy, Florida Amendment 4 issue.

As a property owner in Suwannee County and someone concerned over our declining property values and the foreclosure and unemployment disaster caused by out-of-control growth, I am appalled by the disservice your newspaper has done to its readership in failing to present a true perspective on the Amendment 4.

Not only was the "story" written by Carnell Hawthorne Jr. completely one-sided (one of the rules of good journalism is supposed to be the unbiased presentation of both sides of an issue), it could have been written straight off a Floridians For Smarter Growth press release. As you are probably aware, Ryan Houck is executive director of that group which has its own ballot initiative. Floridians for Smarter Growth is backed by some of the biggest development interests in the state including the Florida Chamber of Commerce. Any competent reporter would have at least attempted to include the fact that Mr. Houck is a member of a group with a competing ballot initiative and therefore is not an unbiased observer. The pros and cons of both amendments should have been explained. For example, under the Floridians for Smarter Growth initiative, 10 percent of the registered voters in the county would have to sign petitions to put each change on the ballot, which would disenfranchise those with disabilities or transportation to get to the supervisor of elections office. Not only that, they would have only 60 days to do it.

There are four criteria to judge for fairness in an article: if they were reported with emphasis on a preferred point of view, if they included only a single point of view, if an opposing point of view was presented, and if those holding the preferred point of view were permitted to rebut claims made by the opposing side. These criteria comport with the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics.

Mr. Hawthorne's article does none of these things.

A community's comp plan is developed over many months, even years. It includes input from all citizens, and all local and state governmental agencies that care to participate in the process. The final approval of this long-range, well-thought-out, comprehensive look down the road at future development and density should be not be changed indiscriminately. After all the time and effort to finalize a community's comp plan, it's worthless if it can be easily amended. A community's comp plan, once finalized, short of security, educational or other civic purposes that can't await the next plan's development, should rarely be changed. Floridians For Smarter Growth calls Amendment 4 the "vote on everything amendment" - and claims people will have to vote on hundreds and thousands of little things. Fact check: Hometown Democracy referenda will track commission votes. So if your commission approves five ordinances approving growth plan changes, there will be five referenda.

As for your editorial on the same subject, while it is the purpose of the editorial department to express the views of the newspaper, those views should be determined by a well thought-out examination of all relevant information. Without ever having spoken to anyone on the Florida Hometown Democracy side, I don't know how your editorial can be interpreted as anything less than completely biased.

A responsible newspaper would at least try and present both sides of the story and let their readers decide for themselves before casting judgment. You owe the people of Suwannee County an unbiased report.

Jill A. Yelverton

O'Brien

Editor’s note: Hawthorne’s article accurately reflects the proceedings on which he reported. Had Ms. Yelverton or another supporter of Amendment 4 been on the agenda, her views would have been included. As it is, we are glad to present them here. Concerning our editorial, we stand behind what we wrote.