Thursday, October 18, 2018

The Amendments

North Bay Village Amendments

Regarding North Bay Village, let's just make it simple.  Vote NO on all of them.  

It helps to understand the process.  The Commission appoints an Advisory Review Board who studies the Charter and makes recommendations for updates.  

These changes are then presented to the Commission for their consideration and they vote on what ones to include and why.  

The Commission may also put on amendments of their own.  

This year the Advisory Review Board was dominated by the news that Ana Watson, while charged with four counts of felony fraud, was appointed by the Commission on the grounds that she's friends with Kreps, Cattabriga and especially Jackson.   They held their meetings, prepared their presentation to the commission and ....

Nothing.  On July 30th, the commission did not hear any presentation from the Charter Review Board and voted on all 16 of them without understanding any of them.   

None of them including the bullshit NEPOTISM one.  They never define Affiliation and this piece of garbage was proposed by our tire fire of a commission because, and I swear I am not making this up, Mayor Crazy Eyes decided that since Marlen Martell was related to someone who married someone who worked in the same city office as a relative of another employee, this was NEPOTISM and it's on our ballot.  And that's not the only crazy one.  

Save yourselves time.  Vote NO on every North Bay Village Amendment.  None of these matter.   

The State Initiatives:

Let's take time to kick off the easy ones.  Those are Amendments 1,2 and 5, which are simply partisan designed to benefit the majority party in the legislature.  They were proposed by the legislature because they didn't want to have to control taxes. 

Amendment 1 is there so they use a Homestead increase so that voters won't be affected but leave the bulk of taxes to businesses, tourists, and second home owners.  Easier than fiscal discipline

Amendment 2 does address non Homesteaded by enshrining in the Constitution an already existing tax break.  It would be unpopular for the leg to vote on that so they are kicking it  to the voters.  

Amendment 5 A 2/3rds requirement for any tax increases in Florida.  No.  Majority should have power.   

Vote NO on 1,2, and 5

The other ones to Vote NO on:

Amendments 6,7,9,10 and 11.  These all have disparate themes in them. 

Maybe the worst is 6.  It looks like a well intentioned effort to enshrine already existing victim's rights in the Constitution.  Who could argue with that?  Except it also forces judges to retire at 75 so the legislature can remake the court more to their liking.   Two subjects - one already a law and the other a trick  Vote NO

Amendment 7 - First part is to pay for the children of First Responders who die in the line of duty to attend state colleges.  That's usually a law so why this?  Oh, so they can hamstring the same state colleges and universities by restricting their control over costs.   Cynical AF, as the kids used to say.  

Amendment 9 - Ban Offshore Drilling and Ban Vaping Indoors.  I admit, I want to vote for this.  I think offshore drilling is a catastrophe and I don't think vaping indoors should be normalized (even though I do it) but it's a trick.   A critical subject and a trival subject.  Maybe I'll vote Yes just to spite them.  

Amendment 10 - Looks like it has something to do with Terrorism (it's against it) but no, it forces Miami-Dade to establish an elected sheriff's department to further politicize our public safety.  Nah.  

Amendment 11 - This is a true #FloridaMan amendment.  It's three actually:

  • Part one repeals a 1920's clause that prohibited Asians from owning land in Florida and failed to pass in 2008 because racists and stupid people thought it had something to do with illegal immigration (it doesn't) and they are counting on the same people to mindlessly vote against this.  
  • Part deux is a clause to remove barriers to high speed rail.   (That's related to immigrant status HOW?)
  • Parte tres is a clause that makes it easier to obtain a pardon for someone convicted of crime after that crime is deemed no longer a crime.  Or an expungement.  
Actually, I just changed my mind.  I'm voting YES on 11

And Voting  on these:  

Amendment 4 - Restoring Voting Rights to Convicted Felons After They Have Completed Their Terms.  YES.   Florida put this restriction in as part of Jim Crow era attempt to disenfranchise African American voters who were promptly arrested and charged with the felony of wanting to vote and it worked so badly that the Southern Alabama idiots are trying to keep it in.  It's unfair, unjust and leads to terrible outcomes.  You do the crime, you serve the time.  You should not have a lifetime of punishment afterwards.  

Amendment 3 - I'm voting NO because I don't like casinos or what they do to neighborhoods.  You probably don't agree.  

Amendment 13 - I'm voting YES for the same reasons above - I don't like that people bet on dog races.   

Amendment 12 - HELL YES.  It restricts government officials from lobbying while in office.  Can you believe they are allowed to now?  

Kevin Vericker
October 18, 2018

1 comment:

Comments are available to all but you must have a name and a contact. If your comment contains either foul language or slanders against individuals, it will be deleted.