Its that time of the year again, no, not the time when I kick all of your asses [ that happens every year silly].
Its time for all of you to go vote. Now i know our league is made up of different people and personalities, so in this post I'm not going to be focusing on the candidates but rather give you all a little bit of explanation on the new Amendments that are on the ballot.
Unfortunately but by necessity this post is going to be rather dry reading. Even so I urge all of you to familiarize yourselves with what they contain seeing as how some of the wording can be a little confusing.
oh.... and Rick Scott is responsible for the algae bloom,.... just throwing that out there.
Amendment 1 proposes to Increase the portion of a home’s value that can be exempted from non-school property taxes by $25,000; exempting the home’s value between $100,000 to $125,000.
A “yes” vote would save homeowners money. However, critics warn that savings will not last since cities will be forced to raise other taxes to make up for the lost revenue. The Florida Association of Counties warns if this amendment passes, cities and counties will lose $752 million in the first year: Money that will need to be replaced
My take: good if you own your own homw for a small amout of time, terrible if you dont own.
A Yes Vote 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 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.
My take: This only affects you if you own non-homesteaded property. Vote no to raise taxes on people with 2 or more property's.
A Yes Vote 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-Americans.
A No Vote Would... -Continue to allow casino gambling either through new laws passed by the Legislature or through various types of constitutional amendments.
My take: this is an interesting one. I am all for more casinos so at first glance I would have voted yes. I dug a little more and it turns out that the backers of this amendment are the Seminole tribe and Disney world. There is no way those 2 want more casinos so ill be voting no.
A Yes Vote 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 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. C-ontinue allowing the governor and Cabinet sole authority to determine whether a felon is allowed to vote again.
My take: vote yes if you think most felons should be able to vote after serving their time.
A Yes Vote 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 super-majority requirements if they choose to raise taxes or fees.
A No Vote 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.
My take: vote Yes if you think our government should need 2/3 of a majority instead of 51%.
A Yes Vote 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 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.
My take: This is one that the wording will fuck you up because of the arbitrarily placed "victims". Basically this allows judges to stay on the bench till 75 and be able to interpret the law as they see fit.
A Yes Vote Would... -Force universities’ boards of trustees and the state Board of Governors to get supermajority approval from their members to increase 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 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.
My take: Ah yes, because university board and paying death benefits tho families to first responders have oh so fucking much in common. Either way someone loses here.
Addison got hosed trading D.Watson for J.Howard
that is all.
No Amendment 8.
A Yes Vote 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. -Possibly signal to the federal government Floridians’ opposition to offshore drilling. -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 Would... -Keep a drilling ban out of the state Constitution but would not alter existing state laws that ban drilling. -Allow Florida legislators to change the current law that bans offshore drilling in state-controlled waters. -Possibly signal to the federal government Floridians’ openness to offshore drilling. -Keep restrictions on vaping and the use of vaping devices out of the state Constitution. -Leave any such vaping restrictions to the discretion of the state Legislature.
My take: this Prohibits oil drilling beneath waters controlled by Florida; prohibits the use of e-cigarettes at indoor workplaces.
A Yes Vote 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 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, and whether those offices should be elected posts.
My take: LOL, like any of you read that fucking shit. I'm voting no because i do not think we need ANOTHER office of counterterrorism.
A Yes Vote 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 Would... -Continue to allow the Legislature to pass laws restricting the property rights of non-citizens. -Continue to mandate that criminal suspects 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.
My take: Do you want people to be charged with a different crime if the court changes the wording of the law? No? Then vote no.
A Yes Vote 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 Would... -Keep in place the current constitutional restrictions on lobbying by sitting and former government officials.
My take: Do you want our politicians to be able to take money from lobbyist? No? Then vote Yes.
A Yes Vote 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 Would... -Continue to allow wagering on dog racing in Florida.
My take: Fuck you, its self explanatory.
And that its my friends. If you got to the end without your eyes bleeding then I salute you. Look, it dosent matter what or who you vote for as long as you do. These elections are more important than the presidential election because these are the people that we chose to govern us directly.
Thanks for reading, and good luck on Sunday.
-THE Robert Siebold.