More Election 2008 Endorsements

• Commentary: Daily News election endorsement summary
• Editorial: Obama offers Americans what country needs now
• Editorial: Election 2008: Judicial retention - Those who know say ‘yes’

Tell us about it

• What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
• Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
• Upload photos & videos
• More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

Share and Enjoy [?]

Three down, three to go.

With the first three of the six constitutional amendments addressed on Wednesday’s editorial page, here are the positions of our editorial board on the rest.

Their numbers are out of sequence due to amendments with the missing numbers being stricken from the ballot as flawed by the Florida Supreme Court.

Each amendment requires a 60 percent voter approval rate for passage. Texts of the amendments as they appear on the ballot are on the following page.

As we said on Wednesday, we are inclined to recommend a “no” vote to each and every one as redundant or unworthy of the full force of an amendment to our state’s guiding document. All of these, it seems to us, could be handled more efficiently by motivated legislators already on the public payroll.

Yet, for voters who prefer to go through them one by one, here are our recommendations:

Amendment 4

Ballot title: Property tax exemption of perpetually conserved land; classification and assessment of land used for conservation

The stated intent sounds great — letting property owners get temporary or permanent property tax breaks on land that they allow to be used for conservation.

That could range from letting it alone to allowing a public trail to meander through it.

Prominent wildlife protection organizations are solidly behind it.

Traditionally, our editorial board agrees with them on matters such as overdevelopment where it doesn’t belong.

We are not with them on this taxation policy matter.

Similar, comparable fiscal incentives already seem to be on the books. Large property owners, who are the ones who tend to be most affected, know how to access favorable tax and development policies.

From past experience with constitutional amendments, which have to go to the Legislature for rule-writing and implementation, there is a history of the results being different from what voters intended.

Examples:

■ Class-size reduction: Politicians and educators continuously look for ways to repeal or weaken it.

■ The bullet train: Although we argued it didn’t make sense, especially for Southwest Florida, voters approved it. Has it been built yet?

■ Save Our Homes: Voters never intended in 1992 for it to include a clause to bite back at homesteads during recessions and “recapture” taxable value accumulated during inflation.

The list goes on: gambling, voluntary prekindergarten, increased voter access to elections.

In other words, we fear this amendment, if approved, would get worked.

Would it help set aside environmentally sensitive lands that states and local governments cannot afford to purchase right now? Probably.

But at what price. Which government agency can afford to take a further financial hit?

Amendment 6

Ballot title: Assessment of working waterfront property based upon current use

Substitute “working waterfront” for “conserved land” mentioned in Amendment 4 and you have the gist of why our editorial board recommends a “no” vote on this as well.

It sounds terrific. We get this mental picture of traditional Florida marinas — backdrops for countless picture postcards — being taxed for what they are rather than for their potential as high-rise condominiums and exclusive dockage for the rich and famous.

But, how many of those marinas are actually left?

And how long would it be before, as this amendment heads to the Legislature for detailing, principals of already redeveloped marinas line up for preferred treatment?

That leads us to the fundamental reason to balk at Amendment 6: It manipulates taxable property values that are best left to a free and open marketplace.

Amendment 8

Ballot title: Local option community college funding

Voters these days may be inclined to vote “no” as soon as they see “sales tax.”

But, please wait.

This amendment seeks only to give the areas around community colleges — and, yes, Edison State College of Southwest Florida would qualify — the option of setting up a local option sales tax for scholarships and expansions.

Frankly, given our area’s past opposition to local option sales taxes, voter approval of such a plan in the future seems a long shot at best. That goes double because each of the counties in Edison’s service area — Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Glades, Hendry — would have to go along with such a levy.

Still, we feel strongly that this is a debate that our communities may want need to have someday. Voting “yes” to Amendment 8 will let that happen.

■ Who can vote? All 203,000 voters in Collier County and 319,000 voters in Lee County.

.