It began in New London

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: It began in New London
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, October 20 2006 15:54 Profile Homepage #25 EDIT: Eh, disregard. [ Friday, October 20, 2006 15:57: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Jumpin Salmon ? Man, ? Amazing Member # 5755	written Friday, October 20 2006 17:00 Profile #26 t Zeviz: Unfortunately, I'm usually just reiterating what is in the Voter's pamphlet. Facts and figures are from there, as well as various opinions. I have not omitted supporters or opposers of this measure. I am trying to use this venue both as a method of dissecting a real life electoral issue, and as an educational tool on the downsides of the ballot measure process. These are the easy ones (39 and 40) with rather simple language and fairly simple implications. They get worse. Much worse. -------------------- quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing. Posts: 4114 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Zeviz Nuke and Pave Member # 24	written Friday, October 20 2006 21:19 Profile Homepage #27 After this conversation I talked to my parents about elections and found out that the same measure is on California ballot. I then had to explain to them that nobody is going to take away their house tomorrow even if they vote "no" and that the measure is infinitely more likely to cost them (through increased taxes) than to help them. So here is the California version of this. I am bolding the things that raise red flags for me. quote: Proposition 90 - Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. - Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses. - Limits government's authority to adopt certain land use, houseing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety. - Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions. - Defines "just compensation." - Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use. - Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner's heir at current fair market vale if government abandons condemnation's objective. - Exempts certain governmental actions. Why would a law against "abuse of eminent domain" include restrictions on consumer, environmental, and workpalce laws? Why does this have to be written into the constitution? What "unpublished court decisions" are they planning to overturn? So I turn past a couple of pages and look at who is presenting the arguments: quote: Arguments in favor of proposition 90 ... Manuel Romero, Eminent Domain Abuse Victim Bob Blue, Eminent Domain Abuse Victim Pastor Roem Agustin, Eminent Domain Abuse Victim Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 90 ... Kenneth W. Willis, President League of California Homeowners Chief Michael L. Warren, President California Fire Chiefs Association Jacqueline Jacobberger, President League of Women Voters of California Arguments Against Proposition 90 ... Chief Michael L. Warren, President California Fire Chiefs Association Chief Steve Krull, President California Police Chiefs Association Edward Thompson, Jr., California Director American Farmland Trust Rebuttal to Arguments Against Proposition 90 DON'T BE FOOLED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS!!! Proposition 90 protects... ... Mimi Walters, Honorary Chair California Protect Our Homes Coalition Martyn B. Hopper, California Director National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) John M. Revelli, Eminent Domain Abuse Victim A list like that would be enough to make it clear which way to vote even without reading the text. On one side we have firefighters, League of Women Voters, poliecemen, California branch of "American Farmland Trust" and "California Homeowners". The last 2 organizations I've never heard of, but the first 3 are the groups whose priorities are often similar to mine. On the other side we have 4 "Eminent Domain Abuse Victims" - a loaded way of saying "we couldn't find 6 organizations to endorse this", along with a group with fake name that was obviously created just to promote this measure (did anybody ever hear of "California Protect Our Homes Coalition"?) and some business group. I also included the first line of "rebuttal to arguments against", just because I found that caps-locked line about special interests to be very amusing, especially when directed by a group of businessmen at representatives of organizations with a reputation for protecting the public. I was also going to post several examples of "surprises" burried in the text of the Proposition, but this post is getting too long. (Here is one example from analysis by the legislative analyst: "...the broad language of the measure suggests that its provisions could apply to a variety of future governmental requirements that impose economic losses on property owners. These laws and rules could include requirements relating, for example, to employment conditions, apartment prices, endangered species, historical preservation, and consumer financial protection.") The moral of the story: before you vote for anything, make sure you understand all implications of your decision. [ Friday, October 20, 2006 21:35: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 \| Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Friday, October 20 2006 21:57 Profile #28 This doesn't have as much to do with Bush as you think, Zeviz. The Republican leadership has been tacking towards the authoritarian end of the spectrum, which is to the clear benefit of various 'libertarians' or other neo-conservative scum. Who, oddly enough, that Republican leadership seems to be primarily recruited from. If I were a skeptical man, I'd think that the preposterous behavior of Bush in his last term has been a special kind of Trojan horse - the mountain of egg from the present Administration will find its way to the face of the religious right rather than the corporate supremacists who have profited most from it. In fact, they'll probably become the Republican mainstream again after the RR has been allowed to self-destruct as it does every decade or so. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00