Over the next couple of days I'm going to put in my two cents on the Florida ballot.

Florida Constitutional Amendment Number 4 as written on a sample ballot:

NO. 4
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE II, SECTION 7

Referenda Required For Adoption And Amendment Of Local Government
Comprehensive Land Use Plans

Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides definitions. The amendment’s impact on local government expenditures cannot be estimated precisely. Local governments will incur additional costs due to the requirement to conduct referenda in order to adopt comprehensive plans or amendments thereto. The amount of such costs depends upon the frequency, timing and method of the referenda, and includes the costs of ballot preparation, election administration, and associated expenses. The impact on state government expenditures will be insignificant.

Take a peek at what land use requirements are all about.

Adopted by the 1985 Legislature, The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (see Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes) - also known as Florida's Growth Management Act - requires all of Florida's 67 counties and 410 municipalities to adopt Local Government Comprehensive Plans that guide future growth and development. Comprehensive plans contain chapters or "elements" that address future land use, housing, transportation, infrastructure, coastal management, conservation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental coordination, and capital improvements. A key component of the Act is its "concurrency" provision that requires facilities and services to be available concurrent with the impacts of development.

The pros and cons of this are debatable depending on who you are and how your local government is effecting you in relation to your property.

I'm going to break this down to extremely an extremely simple level. I have seen where most of the proponents of this amendment are sighting the housing market issues as a reason for slowing growth through amendment 4. I don't find this argument valid considering that nearly every state had housing problems. I also don't think that over development is the real reason behind the push for this amendment. Let me explain.

In Florida there have been quite a few issues with imminent domain, where people who didn't want to sell their property were forced to because their city or county claimed it would benefit the "common good" through an increase in tax revenue. This increase would be due to either property value increases, because of development, or local sales taxes if turned into a shopping area. What actually happened was that the government seized the land and reassigned its "use" as commercial or residential. The government then sold the land to a private entity, business or developer, claiming the increase in tax revenue was a benefit to the common good. Of course this is not the intent of the laws surrounding the use of imminent domain. But here in good-ole Florida judges have ruled almost every time in favor of the government. Amendment 4 would put a stop to this. The city or county would not be able to reassign the land's "use" without a vote by the public. This would keep land from being seized because there would be a much greater possibility that the land's "use" would remain unchanged. Even if it were changed it could take years.

While fighting imminent domain abuse is a good thing, it does not outweigh the negative aspects of this proposed legislation. What if someone wants to sell their land to a developer? Amendment 4 will restrict the rights of the land owner by making future development solely a public matter. Amendment 4 will result in slower development in all areas. Florida will no longer be seen as a business friendly state because of the red tape and time delays required to build. Could you imagine purchasing a plot of land without knowing what you can do with it or when? Now imagine you own a business; would that level of uncertainty make you feel good about land purchases?

A better idea would be to get rid of the liberal judges who purposely misconstrue the meaning of select laws.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Over the next couple of days I'm going to put in my two cents on the Florida ballot.

Florida Constitutional Amendment Number 2 as written on a sample ballot:

NO. 2
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3
ARTICLE XII, SECTION 31

Homestead Ad Valorem Tax Credit For Deployed Military Personnel

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption by law for members of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National
Guard who receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The exempt amount will be based upon the number of days in the previous calendar year that the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The amendment is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.

You can see the full text of the amendment here, just filter for 2010.

This portion of the Florida Constitution is a little lengthy so here is a link.

The amendment would add the following part (g) to ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3.

(g) By general law and subject to the conditions specified therein, each person who receives a homestead exemption as provided in section 6 of this article; who was a member of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard; and who was deployed during the preceding calendar year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the legislature shall receive an additional exemption equal to a percentage of the taxable value of his or her homestead property. The applicable percentage shall be calculated as the number of days during the preceding calendar year the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the legislature divided by the number of days in that year.

But wait there's more...

There would also be this addition to ARTICLE XII.

ARTICLE XII SCHEDULE SECTION 31. Additional ad valorem tax exemption for certain members of the armed forces deployed on active duty outside of the United States.--The amendment to Section 3 of Article VII providing for an additional ad valorem tax exemption for members of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard deployed on active duty outside of the United States in support of military operations designated by the legislature and this section shall take effect January 1, 2011.

As far as I can tell this is a good deal for active duty military stationed outside of the continental U.S.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Over the next couple of days I'm going to put in my two cents on the Florida ballot.

Florida Constitutional Amendment Number 1 as written on a sample ballot:

NO. 1
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 7

Repeal Of Public Campaign Financing Requirement

Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution that requires public financing of campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.

Here is the text of the Florida Constitution.

ARTICLE VI, SECTION 7.

Campaign spending limits and funding of campaigns for elective state-wide office.--It is the policy of this state to provide for state-wide elections in which all qualified candidates may compete effectively. A method of public financing for campaigns for state-wide office shall be established by law. Spending limits shall be established for such campaigns for candidates who use public funds in their campaigns. The legislature shall provide funding for this provision. General law implementing this paragraph shall be at least as protective of effective competition by a candidate who uses public funds as the general law in effect on January 1, 1998.

You have to look at the State Statutes if you want to find out what the actual law surrounding campaign finance is.

106.30

Short title.
—

Sections 106.30-106.36 may be cited as the “Florida Election Campaign Financing Act.”
History.
—

s. 1, ch. 86-276.
106.31

Legislative intent.
—

The Legislature finds that the costs of running an effective campaign for statewide office have reached a level which tends to discourage persons from becoming candidates and to limit the persons who run for such office to those who are independently wealthy, who are supported by political committees representing special interests which are able to generate substantial campaign contributions, or who must appeal to special interest groups for campaign contributions. The Legislature further finds that campaign contributions generated by such political committees are having a disproportionate impact vis-a-vis contributions from unaffiliated individuals, which leads to the misperception of government officials unduly influenced by those special interests to the detriment of the public interest. Furthermore, it is the intent of the Legislature that the purpose of public campaign financing is to make candidates more responsive to the voters of the State of Florida and as insulated as possible from special interest groups. The Legislature intends ss. 106.30-106.36 to alleviate these factors, dispel the misperception, and encourage qualified persons to seek statewide elective office who would not, or could not otherwise do so and to protect the effective competition by a candidate who uses public funding.

Why should the tax payers be mandated by the state to fund election campaigns involuntarily? The idea that public campaign financing decreases the effectiveness of lobbyists is absurd. It's not like lobbyists are only active before an election. Lobbyists lobby constantly; it's not a part-time job.

Tea Party candidates have been largely effective in many states (without mainstream party backing) is proof enough that campaign finance laws are irrelevant.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Juan Williams has been fired by NPR.

This was done because Juan Williams no longer fits the narrative of NPR. This is profound considering that "public broadcasting" has a narrative? Hmm...

Why did NPR say that they fired him?

NPR fired Williams Wednesday night after 10 years with the network for comments he made about Muslims on Fox News.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Anyone who has watched the British comedy "Coupling" would understand what is happening here. In one episode Sally, a liberal character, says that the (conservative) Tories are the establishment party. Patrick, the conservative character points out that the leftists are currently in power, so they (the leftists) are the establishment.

Sally replies, "No! You’re not the goodies, we’re the goodies! We’re lefties!! We’re always goodies!"

I never thought I would see this played out in real life, much less by a U.S. president.

“We need you fired up,” Obama told a crowd estimated by police to be roughly 35,000 on the campus of Ohio State University. “You can defy the conventional wisdom.”

Obama said the election on Nov. 2 was “a contest between our deepest hopes and our deepest fears.”

“And the other side is playing on fear. That’s what they do.”

Obama, turning again to his attacks on millions of dollars in campaign ads run by independent groups that do not under law have to disclose their donors, referred to special interests as an “empire.”

“The empire is striking back,” he said.

How can the establishment party call anyone else "The Empire"?

Can somebody clearly define a "special interest group"? Vague language, such as "special interests", is one of the reasons we have such a confused public. There are too many straw men out there.

Obama has blamed everyone and everything for his declining poll numbers. Is it possible that his policies have something to do with it? How many democrats are running on their stimulus plan votes or their votes for the health care bill?

Just run on substance Mr. President. Whining because people are working against your policy is not substance.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.