Showing posts with label carlos beruff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carlos beruff. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

A builder leaves Sarasota County

 Dear Sirs and Ma’ams,

My name is Josh Wynne. I was born and raised in Sarasota, Florida; the ninth generation of my family from Florida. 

As I take time to write this, my wife continues to pack, as we have sold our business and our home, and we have purchased several properties and a home in Citrus County. On Wednesday, Michelle and I will make our move to Homosassa where we will live while we build our waterfront home in unincorporated Crystal River. We love Florida, and we especially love the wild places of Florida, which is why we love Citrus County, and which is why we are leaving Sarasota County. Citrus County remains largely unmolested by the hands of the worst land developers. 

 This is the reason for my letter. 

 I witnessed the demise of Sarasota County at the hands of a few crafty developers. I watched as remarkably beautiful lands were separated from every single living thing on them, at the hands of these developers who had the funds, the legal teams, and the connections to make things happen to land that should never be allowed to happen—that are not allowed to happen. And still, with corporate strength, money, resources, and connections, these trespasses can happen, and often happen at the expense of the tax payers themselves. 

Carlos Beruff

 These previously beautiful lands, once laid bare, will be replaced by soul-less homes, devoid of any of the architectural character that creates wonderful places, celebrated places, places worth visiting. These homes will be built by the lowest bidders. They will be built to the lowest acceptable standards, by every measure. The sub-contractors that build these homes will be underpaid, encouraged to work on the margins of legality, and will struggle with timely pay, and will often struggle to be paid at all.

 Carlos Beruff, from my perception, is one of those developers.

 I am a home builder. I do not, and have never competed with Mr. Beruff, so please do not confuse this correspondence with any sort of business related issue. I am sending this correspondence to make you consider the probable consequences of your actions, should you accept his bid for your parcel for sale. This email is a plea for a thoughtful consideration of other pathways to benefit the citizens of Citrus County that do not include opening the door to the proverbial chicken coop to the Fox, himself.

 I make no assertions to his character beyond what has been written and published in the attached links, but mark my words, once he is in Citrus County, you will no longer have authority over the happenings on your lands. 

 I will be releasing this correspondence to the public. Should you fail to consider this warning, the voters of Citrus County will know your record on this issue. Please vote smartly. 

 If you sell him that land, don’t spend the money. You may need it for litigation. 

 The following links were sourced in order by simply searching, “Carlos Beruff.” There are plenty more, none of them flattering.

 

https://thebradentontimes.com/beruff-drops-million-dollar-lawsuit-against-activist-p19923-158.htm

 

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2022/01/05/carlos-beruff-challenges-florida-commission-ethics-decision/9096359002/

 

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2022/01/05/carlos-beruff-challenges-florida-commission-ethics-decision/9096359002/

 

https://www.amisun.com/2017/11/19/beruff-attorneys-will-co-defend-aqua-lawsuit/

 

https://www.suncoastwaterkeeper.org/beruff_intervention

 

https://www.yourobserver.com/article/long-bar-pointe-lawsuit-reaches-settlement

 

http://www.impactfees.com/pdfs_all/manatee-county-sett.pdf

 

https://oursantaferiver.org/carlos-beruff-in-the-headlines-again/

 

https://account.bradenton.com/paywall/stop?resume=247695770

 

https://thebradentontimes.com/rick-scotts-parting-gift-to-carlos-beruff-is-a-disgrace-of-governance-p20512-137.htm

 

https://www.staugustine.com/story/news/state/2016/09/21/carlos-beruffs-wetland-mitigation-bank-shot-down-federal-agency/16296971007/


Josh Wynne

Friday, July 17, 2020

UPDATE: Who's funding your candidate?

Voters will make key decisions on August 18, when Republican voters in Sarasota cast ballots to decide which Republican candidate they want to run in the November 3 election for the County Commission seats in District 1 (northeast Sarasota) and District 5 (North Port/Englewood).

Among other factors in choosing, it's good to know who stands behind the candidate, who is funding him or her? No endorsements, but some facts:


DISTRICT 1



This information is very easy to find. Go to this page of the Supervisor of Elections site, click on a candidate's name, and you'll find the reports of each candidate on who gave them money. For example, here's a report from Mike Moran.

Moran's received over $47,000 so far for his 2020 campaign, and the developers have given a substantial share of that:




To compare, click on Mike Hutchinson's list of contributors. He has taken in $6,294.71 so far. He's loaned himself $30,000 to stay in the race.


DISTRICT 5

You can do the same in District 5.

Ron Cutsinger, a former board-appointee on the Planning Commission, has $55,000 so far. His list of contributors starts here. In addition to his own money, he's received backing from a number of builders and developers:


Recently Cutsinger has also received support from the Boone family, whose Venice law firm does a good deal of legal work for developers. Here's part of July 2020's list:


His Republican Primary opponent Christopher Hanks has $17,605. Along with land owners and Realtors show up the Benderson name also appears in his list. In August 2019, the West Villages and related developer contributors show up:




Randy Benderson



And in January 2020, the Benderson family came aboard the Hanks campaign with donations totaling $800:


Chris Hanks January 2020 donors - partial list

You can do the same research for the Democratic candidates, but they're not running in this Republican Primary for the BCC.

The winners of the Republican BCC Primary will face Democrats in the fall: Mark Pienkos in District 1, and Alice White in District 5.

Broader perspective


A broader look at developer influence over the last four years would include these contributors to our County Commissioners:



As well as these developer-donors to our School Board members:


One more thing about the upcoming elections . . .


The "Primary" for Sheriff and School Board is not in fact a Primary, but a final election. More about that here.

It's very important to vote on Aug. 18 - to do that, you need to register by July 20, which is coming right up. All the information you need to learn how to register, to change party affiliation, voting districts and more can be found at the nonpartisan Citizens for District Power site.


Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Why single member voting is necessary in Sarasota County now


. . . we agree with the judge’s finding of insufficient evidence that this was about race. And he certainly had cause to conclude that it was more about party politics. But let us not forget that the effect of this new electoral map — along with the cause that provoked it, the push for single-member districts — is mostly about money. More specifically, it is about deriving as much profit as possible from the development of our county’s remaining available land.

The rationale for single-district representation, which voters accepted and the current commission did not, was that seats on the commission would become less costly and more accessible to candidates who are not backed by wealthy developers. This is the rationale we now come back around to, with the conclusion of this litigation. 
It will take more time than the voting majority expected to find out if this change will have the effect they desire. But the goal remains intact, and remains worth pursuing.


Sunday, December 8, 2019

Friday 13th in Sarasota: Robust Protest against Rotten Redistricting



The Sarasota County Commission is forcing a county-wide redistricting that every thinking resident opposes. It's doing it for one reason only -- to retain the corruption that has run things for many years:

This is the Board that selected Bob Waechter's curdled map that carves out Blacks and stuffs District 1 with white & right voting blocks.

This is the Board that was pleased to give our public lands at the Celery Fields to industrialists Jim Gabbert and Bob Waechter -- until the people spoke out.

Board of Sarasota County Commissioners

This is the Board that approves super-sized developments like Siesta Promenade for Benderson Development Inc., and grants outmoded community formats to Pat Neal, Rex Jensen, Carlos Beruff and their ilk. Wealthy developers, builders contractors and Realtors bankroll the powers that keep control of Sarasota in the hands of the few.


At Phillippi Park on Friday 12.13, tell the Board their attempt to protect Mike Moran's seat in District 1 will not work. We know who Mike answers to:


And whom they all answer to:



Come out and tell them their rotting dominion of broken infrastructure, rampant development, Red Tide and regressive power lunches with oligarchs is over. 



Friday morning, the Board will be meeting at the mansion in Phillippi Park. Let's be so loud they'll hear themselves being tossed out of office in November 2020.



Sunday, October 27, 2019

Development interests seek to protect Moran -- Herald Tribune

Development Interests, Redistricting, Water Management and the fate of the Celery Fields all converge in this excerpt from Oct. 26, 2019 Herald Tribune article entitled: Redistricting criticism mounts as big vote nears" by Zac Anderson:

         . . . [Commissioner Mike] Moran is viewed by some political observers, including GOP insiders, as being more closely aligned with the business community, including development interests.
Some believe the redistricting effort is not simply about protecting Republicans, but protecting the Sarasota County power structure and development interests.
Dist. 1 Sarasota County Commissioner Mike Moran
Moran is an insurance agent who moved to the region from Michigan in 2002 and became active in local politics, serving in a succession of roles that involved key decisions on development proposals.
A former president of the Sarasota Republican Club, Moran was appointed to the Sarasota County Planning Commission — which reviews development applications and has been a springboard to elected office — in 2012.
Rick Scott
In 2013 Moran was picked by former Gov. Rick Scott to serve on the Southwest Florida Water Management District board, another position that reviews major development proposals. Prominent developer Carlos Beruff, who is close with Scott, served on the board at the same time.
Development interests appeared to view Moran as a friend when he ran for the County Commission in 2016. They donated heavily to his campaign.
The Herald-Tribune wrote in 2016 that “Almost half of the more than $72,000 in contributions Moran’s campaign has received through July are tied to developers, attorneys who work closely with developers, other politicians, contractors, investors and real estate agents, according to campaign finance records.”
Developers who give generously to local political candidates 
“Those donations include at least $7,600 from 38 separate $200 donations (the cap for local campaign contributions) from LLCs with addresses listed at the offices of Lakewood Ranch, Schroeder-Manatee Ranch and Medallion Homes — companies owned by highly influential developers Pat Neal, Rex Jensen and Carlos Beruff.”
Waechter, his wife and corporations that Waechter controls gave a total of $1,800 to Moran’s 2016 campaign.
Waechter is a real estate investor who is aligned with key figures in the Sarasota County power structure and has been one of the most influential behind-the-scenes political players.
Moran also received extensive contributions from Sarasota businessman Jim Gabbert and his companies. After winning a seat on the commission, Moran supported Gabbert’s controversial proposal to construct a recycling facility for construction and demolition materials roughly 1,000 feet from the Celery Fields, a nature area beloved by bird watchers and other outdoor enthusiasts.
James Gabbert

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

LWV analysis of proposed amendments to Florida Constitution

2018 Florida Constitutional Amendments

The League of Women Voters of Florida has conducted independent research on the pros and cons of all thirteen amendments that will be on the ballot in Novemeber. Here are some summaries of the meaning and impact of a yes or no vote on the amendments. For more details on the Amendments click here. 
For more views, see the analysis by the Tampa Bay Times, and another by the Florida Phoenix.

Thirteen proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution are on the General Election ballot, nine more than appeared on the 2016 ballot. However, voters face more questions than is apparent.
That’s because Florida’s Constitution Revision Commission (CRC), which convenes every 20 years, is allowed by law to bundle more than one issue into each question. An example of the CRC’s issue bundling in 2018 is Amendment 9, which asks voters to decide whether to ban offshore oil drilling, and whether to ban e-cigarettes at workplaces. Like the CRC’s other bundled amendments, voters cannot cast separate votes on drilling and vaping. These are all-or-nothing propositions.
Of the 13 amendments on this year’s ballot, eight were proposed by the CRC, three by the Florida Legislature and two by citizen initiative. To pass, each of them must receive at least 60 percent approval by voters. Unless otherwise indicated, changes to the Constitution take effect on Jan. 8, 2019.
Below are summaries of each amendment, including the impact of a yes or no vote.
Amendment 1
Increased Homestead Property Tax Exemption
Grants an additional $25,000 homestead exemption for homes valued over $125,000. Owners of homes worth more than $100,000 would also receive an increase in their exemption.
A YES vote on Amendment 1 would:
Allow homeowners to deduct an additional $25,000 from the taxable value of a home worth more than $100,000, starting on Jan. 1, 2019.
Exclude local school taxes from the new exemption.
Cost Florida’s cities, counties and other taxing authorities an estimated $687.5 million annually, starting in 2019, according to the Florida Association of Counties.
Likely result in cuts to services or higher local rates to make up for the revenue losses, or possibly both.
A NO vote on Amendment 1 would:
Retain the current homestead tax exemptions, which total $50,000.
Have no effect on the amount of tax revenue collected by city and county governments.
Supporters: Unknown (Homesteaders, mayne??)
Opponents: Florida Association of Counties; Florida Education Association; Florida League of Cities; Florida Policy Institute; League of Women Voters of Florida; Progress Florida

Amendment 2
Limitations on Property Tax Assessments
Makes permanent what currently is a temporary cap of 10 percent on annual property value increases for vacation homes, apartments and commercial property, effectively limiting increases on tax bills.
A YES vote on Amendment 2 would:
Make permanent the 10 percent limit on increases in tax value for non-homestead property, thus reducing tax bills.
Continue to deny local governments (excluding school districts) tax revenue they would otherwise collect from rising property values.
A NO vote on Amendment 2 would:
End the practice of limiting tax increases on non-homestead property by limiting property-value increases to 10 percent.
Possibly lead to higher tax bills for non-homestead property, resulting in additional revenue to local governments of about $700 million, according to the state Revenue Estimating Conference.
Supporters: Florida Association of Realtors; Florida Chamber of Commerce; Florida TaxWatch
Opponents: Florida Education Association; League of Women Voters of Florida

Amendment 3
Voter Control of Gambling in Florida
Requires approval of any new casino gambling through a citizen-initiative constitutional amendment, effectively barring the Legislature from making those gambling decisions by passing laws.
A YES vote on Amendment 3 would:
Require that voters approve a constitutional amendment through citizen initiative to authorize any new casino gambling in Florida, essentially stripping that authority from the Legislature.
Preclude constitutional approval of casinos through other means, including amendments offered by the Legislature or by the CRC.
Continue to allow the Legislature to approve other types of non-casino gambling, such as poker rooms, bingo, lotteries and fantasy sports.
Allow the Legislature to oversee, regulate and tax any casino-type gambling that voters approve through a constitutional amendment.
Not affect the state’s ability to negotiate casino agreements with Native-American
A NO vote on Amendment 3 would:
Continue to allow casino gambling either through new laws passed by the Legislature or through various types of constitutional amendments.
Supporters: Disney Worldwide Services; Florida Chamber of Commerce; Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association; League of Women Voters of Florida; No Casinos Inc.; Seminole Tribe of Florida
Opponents: Florida Education Association

Amendment 4
Voting Restoration Amendment
Allows those who have completed their entire sentence to earn the right to vote back except for those convicted of murder or felony sex offenses..
A YES vote on Amendment 4 would:
Grant felons – excluding those convicted of murder or felony sex crimes – the right to vote after completing all the terms of their sentence. The Governor’s Clemency Board studies have shown that recidivism rates drop about 30% if person has their voting rights restored. Another study shows that with a lower recidivism rate, costs of incarceration go down, employment goes up and that the positive impact on the Florida economy is $365 million per year.
A NO vote on Amendment 4 would:
Continue the current requirement that felons wait a minimum of five years before applying to have their voting rights restored, and then appear before the governor and Cabinet to appeal for those rights.
Continue allowing the governor and Cabinet sole authority to determine whether a felon is allowed to vote again.
Supporters: American Civil Liberties Union;Florida Rights Restoration Coalition; Floridians for a Fair Democracy; Florida Policy Institute; Florida Education Association; Florida National Organization for Women; League of Women Voters of Florida; Progress Florida
Opponents: Floridians for a Sensible Voting Rights Policy 

Amendment 5
Supermajority Vote Required to Impose, Authorize, or Raise State Taxes or Fees
Requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to approve any new or increased taxes or fees, rather than a simple majority.
A YES vote on Amendment 5 would:
Require a two-thirds vote by the state House and Senate to increase existing taxes and fees or impose new ones.
Require that any new or increased taxes or fees be voted on in stand-alone bills.
Exclude local governments from any supermajority requirements if they choose to raise taxes or fees.
A NO vote on Amendment 5 would:
Allow the Legislature to continue approving increased or new taxes and fees through a simple majority vote.
Allow the Legislature to continue bundling tax and fee increases with bills that include other measures.
Supporters: Florida TaxWatch; Florida Chamber of Commerce
Opponents: Florida Education Association; Florida Policy Institute; League of Women Voters of Florida; Progress Florida

Amendment 6
Rights of Crime Victims; Judges
Vastly expands the scope of victims rights under the state Constitution; increases the mandatory retirement age for judgesfrom 70 to 75; forces courts and judges to interpret laws and rules for themselves rather than rely on interpretations by government agencies.
A YES vote on Amendment 6 would:
Enshrine in the state Constitution an array of victims rights, many of which are currently in state law.
Place new time limits on filing appeals.
Require that victims receive some type of written notification of their rights.
Eliminate an existing constitutional provision that ensures victims’ rights don’t infringe on the rights of accused criminals.
Raise the mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices and judges from 70 to 75.
Prohibit courts and judges from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation of state laws or rules when deciding cases.
A NO vote on Amendment 6 would:
Retain existing victims rights in the Constitution and in state law.
Keep the mandatory retirement ages for justices and judges at 70.
Continue allowing courts and judges to rely on state agencies’ interpretation of state laws and rules when deciding cases.
Supporters: 37 Florida sheriffs; Florida Smart Justice
Opponents: ACLU of Florida; Florida Education Association; Florida Public Defender Association; League of Women Voters of Florida

Amendment 7
First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits; Public Colleges and Universities
Creates a supermajority requirement for universities to impose new or increase existing student fees; enshrines in the Constitution guidelines for the State College System; mandates that employers or the state pay a death benefit to first responders and members of the military killed in the line of duty.
A YES vote on Amendment 7 would:
Force universities’ boards of trustees and the state Board of Governors to get supermajority approval from their members toincrease student fees or impose new ones.
Make the governing framework for state colleges a part of the Constitution.
Create a constitutional requirement for state and local governments to pay death benefits to first responders.
Expand the definition of first responders under state law to include paramedics and emergency medical technicians.
Require the state to provide death benefits to members of the U.S. military who are either residents of Florida or who are stationed in the state.
Create an undetermined financial burden on local and state government from paying death benefits to a larger group of first responders and members of the military. The amendment does not specify a funding source for those payments.
A NO vote on Amendment 7 would:
Continue allowing universities to increase student fees or impose new ones with a simple majority of votes from governing bodies.
Exclude a governing framework for state colleges from the Constitution, while keeping it in state law.
Continue providing death benefits for first responders through state law rather than making it part of the Constitution.
Maintain the current definition of first responders eligible for death benefits, which excludes paramedics and emergency medical technicians.
Continue providing death benefits to the families of National Guardsmen who are killed in the line of duty, but not extend those benefits to the families of U.S. service members who live in Florida.
Supporters: Association of Florida Colleges
Opponents: Florida Education Association; League of Women Voters of Florida

Amendment 8  
NOTE: The Florida Supreme Court has removed Amendment 8 from the November 2018 Ballot, upholding the decision by a lower court.
School Board Term Limits and Duties; Public Schools
Mandates term limits of eight years for all Florida school boards; allows the state to create public schools, something only local school boards currently can do; and requires schools to teach “civic literacy.”
 A YES vote on Amendment 8 would have:
Created constitutional term limits for all Florida school board members, who could serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms.
Allowed the Legislature to set up a state-run system for establishing and operating public schools, something only local school boards, elected by local communities, currently can do.
Created a constitutional requirement for civics education in public schools, something state law already requires in middle schools.
A NO vote on Amendment 8 would have:
Rejected term limits for school board members and allow voters to return board members to office as long as they get re-elected.
Kept local school boards as the sole authority for approving, operating and supervising public schools.
Rejected a constitutional mandate for civics education, which would not affect the current state law that requires middle schools to teach students about the U.S. Constitution and other governing documents and institutions.
Supporters: U.S.. Term Limits
Opponents: Florida School Boards Association; Florida Policy Institute; Florida Education Association; Florida National Organization for Women; League of Women Voters of Florida; Progress Florida

Amendment 9
Prohibits Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling; Prohibits Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces Prohibits oil drilling beneath waters controlled by Florida; prohibits the use of e-cigarettes, also known as vaping, at indoor workplaces.
 A YES vote on Amendment 9 would:
Enshrine in the Constitution a ban on oil and gas drilling beneath Florida state waters. Exempt shipments of oil and gas on Florida’s waters.   Apply constitutional restrictions to drilling only to waters under state control, not to waters under federal control. Add new restrictions to the Constitution on the use of electronic vaping devices, largely mirroring current constitutional restrictions on indoor workplace smoking. Create exceptions to the vaping restrictions in homes, bars, vaping retailers and hotel rooms designated for vaping. Allow local governments to pass stricter regulations on the use of vaping devices.
A NO vote on Amendment 9 would:
Allow Florida legislators to change the current law that bans offshore drilling in state-controlled waters.
Leave any such vaping restrictions to the discretion of the state Legislature.
Supporters: Florida Wildlife Federation; Gulf Restoration Network; American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network; League of Women Voters of Florida; Florida Policy Institute; Progress Florida
Opponents: Florida Petroleum Council; Associated Industries of Florida; Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association; Florida Education Association; Florida Chamber of Commerce

Amendment 10
State and Local Government Structure and Operation
Requires the Legislature to hold its session in early January on even-numbered years; creates an Office of Domestic Security and Counterterrorism within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement; mandates the existence of a state Department of Veterans’ Affairs; forces all counties to elect a sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections and Clerk of Circuit Court.
A YES vote on Amendment 10 would:
Fix the date for state legislative sessions in even-numbered years as the second Tuesday in January.
Create an Office of Domestic Security and Counterterrorism within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and establish it as the lead agency in terrorism investigations and responses.
Force the Legislature to always have a Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
Force all of Florida’s counties, even those with a charter, to hold elections for all five local constitutional offices found in the state Constitution – sheriff, property appraiser, supervisor of elections, tax collector and clerk of the circuit court.
A NO vote on Amendment 10 would:
Continue allowing the Legislature to set a start date for its lawmaking session in even-numbered years.
Reject a constitutionally mandated Office of Security and Counterterrorism under the FDLE.
Reject a constitutionally mandated Department of Veterans’ Affairs, allowing the Legislature to determine if Florida should have such a department (which it currently does).
Allow Florida’s charter counties to continue determining the duties of five county offices identified in the state Constitution, andwhether those offices should be elected posts.
Supporters: Florida’s 66 elected Sheriffs, and Florida’s elected Tax Collectors, Clerks of the Courts, and the Property Appraisers.
Opponents: Florida Education Association; League of Women Voters of Florida

Amendment 11
Property Rights; Removal of Obsolete Provision; Criminal Statutes
Repeals the state’s ability to prohibit non-citizens from buying, owning and selling property; deletes a provision that forces the state to prosecute criminal suspects under the law they were originally charged under, even if the Legislature changes that law;deletes obsolete language having to do with high-speed rail in Florida.
A YES vote on Amendment 11 would:
Repeal a nearly century-old provision that allows the Legislature to restrict the property rights of non-citizens.
Deletes language that requires criminal suspects to be prosecuted under the provisions of the law they’re accused of breaking, even if that law is changed by the Legislature. Keeps language that requires prosecution if the law is repealed.
Deletes a section of the Constitution – concerning high-speed transportation – that was repealed by voters in 2004. The language, however, was not removed.
A NO vote on Amendment 11 would:
Continue to allow the Legislature to pass laws restricting the property rights of non-citizens.
Continue to mandate that criminal suspects (would be) prosecuted under the law they’re accused of breaking even if the state changes that law.
Retain a section of the Constitution about high-speed transportation even though voters repealed that section in 2004.
Supporters: Florida Chamber of Commerce
Opponents: Florida Education Association

Amendment 12 
Lobbying and Abuse of Office by Public Officers
Expands ethics rules for elected officials and government employees, notably by expanding from two to six years the time that many officials would have to wait before they could lobby state government.
 A YES vote on Amendment 12 would:
Extend the ban on state lobbying by legislators and statewide elected officials from two to six years.
Prohibit legislators and statewide elected officials from lobbying federal and local government agencies while in office.
Prohibit top state agency employees from any lobbying while working for the state and from lobbying state government for six years after leaving their job.
Prohibit local elected officials from getting paid to lobby anyone while in office and from lobbying their own governing body for six years after leaving office.
Prohibit judges from lobbying any branch of state government for six years after leaving the bench.
Prohibit any elected official or public employee from using his or her position to gain a “disproportionate benefit,” a term to be defined by the state Ethics Commission.
A NO vote on Amendment 12 would:
Keep in place the current constitutional restrictions on lobbying by sitting and former government officials.
Supporters: Common Cause; Florida Policy Institute; Integrity Florida
Opponents: Florida Chamber of Commerce; Florida Education Association

Amendment 13  Dog Racing
Bans wagering on any type of dog racing, notably greyhounds, as of Dec. 31, 2020, while continuing to allow dog tracks to continue offering other types of gambling, including poker rooms.
 A YES vote on Amendment 13 would:
Ban all dog racing in Florida by Dec. 31, 2020, while allowing tracks to continue operating card rooms and slot machines.

Result in a loss of about $1 million in taxes and fees.
A NO vote on Amendment 13 would:
Continue to allow wagering on dog racing in Florida.
Supporters: Grey2K USA; League of Women Voters of Florida
Opponents: Florida Greyhound Association; Florida Education Association; Florida Chamber of Commerce