Readers: I will Vote “No” when I see: “2”. By Geniusofdespair

There are two ballot questions with the number two: A STATE Ballot Question and a COUNTY Ballot Question. I will vote “No” on both. In fact, those are the two most important ballot questions so you can actually skip the others if you want to. The County Ballot Question 2 asks if you want to give a raise to the County Commissioners (that is including Vile Natacha Seijas and the unreformable majority). I say “No Way!” and the Miami Herald agrees with me and, thankfully, they wrote why and I agree with them:

County Charter Question 2 “would raise commission salaries according to a state formula based on population. It would prohibit commissioners from having outside employment. Annual salaries would increase to about $92,000 from $6,000.

The Charter Review Task Force recommended the pay hike, but included term limits as a sweetener to voters, who have consistently rejected salary increases. We have supported pay raises for commissioners. What they earn now is insufficient and forces them to hold jobs that may present conflicts. Decent salaries might prompt people who now can't afford to run the incentive to file, giving voters more choices. This year commissioners made it extremely galling to support a pay increase by dropping the term-limit proviso. The commission majority acted in its own interests rather than in the public's. We recommend NO."

This what the Miami Herald said about the State Question. 2:

“Florida law already prohibits what this amendment seeks to ban: gay marriage. So the only thing it would do is enshrine discrimination in our state constitution. This amendment is mean-spirited and misguided.

It targets gay and lesbian couples, but it would cause grief and suffering to other couples, whether they're gay or not. That's because of ambiguous language that says any legal union that is the ''substantial equivalent'' of marriage would not be recognized.

This would jeopardize the benefits and health insurance that many companies provide to unmarried, heterosexual couples.

The amendment threatens the property rights of elderly people who live together for convenience, economics and safety. Hospital-visitation rights of unmarried couples would be at risk. The amendment doesn't protect marriage and threatens many lifestyle choices.

We recommend a NO vote.”