New York Times Editorial on Florida Citizens Getting the Shaft on Solar, Environment, Land and Conservation, Voting, and More! By Geniusofdespair

HOW ON EARTH CAN I GET YOU TO READ THIS? PLEASE DO IT. This is what happens when your State legislature is over-loaded with one party:

THE TEXT:

I don't know the difference, because measure ONE is meant to confuse you: All I know is VOTE 4 in August. By Geniusofdespair

SOLAR: YES FOUR, NO ONE

Florida Tax Exemptions for Renewable Energy Measure, Amendment 4 (August 2016) - We will be voting on this in August: VOTE YES. We are in favor of 4.

----------------------
S M A R T   S O L A R

This is the bad one --- on the ballot already in November. Amendment "No" One. Look at who is paying for one:

Florida Right to Solar Energy Choice Initiative, also known as Amendment 1

This was a very nasty thing to do to the citizens. They make 1 sound good - it is not.

In Florida, Republicans get cancer too … by gimleteye

Republican: Pinellas County Commissioner John Morroni Has Brain Cancer

In Florida, Republicans get cancer too, but even though 58 percent of voters approved a measure to allow medical marijuana -- particularly useful in alleviating pain and suffering for cancer treatments -- humane treatment will not be legally available in the Sunshine State.

3.3 million voters or 58% of Floridians approved the constitutional amendment on Tuesday. But Florida uniquely requires a 60 percent supermajority of voters to change the law by referendum. How did this happen?

In the early 2000's under Gov. Jeb Bush, the GOP legislature and its patrons, Big Sugar, the Florida Homebuilders, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Florida, began demonizing a citizens ballot initiative rising to the forefront: Florida Hometown Democracy.

Activists had started collecting signatures for a ballot referendum that promised hope to alleviate the costs of rampant suburban sprawl. Although Florida Hometown Democracy took an additional election cycle to make the state wide ballot, special interests wanted to head off the civic activists at the pass.

Florida's lobbyist class representing deep-pocketed campaign contributors mounted a countermeasure. They did it with 58 percent of the vote in 2006 when 2.6 million voters approved putting brakes on ballot initiatives by requiring not a simple majority to pass a ballot item, but a supermajority: from fifty to sixty percent.

All Florida Hometown Democracy wanted to do was to provide citizens the opportunity to vote for or against changes to community and municipal master development plans, required by state law to protect quality of life and the environment. Wealthy GOP funders viewed this as an existential threat.

That's why on Tuesday, the will of 3.3 million voters … a higher percentage than voted to legalize marijuana for adults in Oregon -- failed in Florida. Ironically, both the medical marijuana amendment and the 2006 requirement of a supermajority passed by fifty eight percent of the popular vote in Florida. Only the marijuana amendment failed.

On Tuesday, another pro-people amendment -- to conserve Florida's vanishing wilderness -- garnered 75 percent of the popular vote in Florida mainly because the Florida Chamber of Commerce and special interests sat on the sidelines. Why?

A lot of this money -- more than $9 billion -- will find its way into the pockets of special interests and land speculators over the next decade. But if you or your loved ones are puking your guts out from cancer treatments, thanks to those same special interests, there will be no legal marijuana in Florida to alleviate the pain.

How many Florida voters understand how this happened? In Florida, understanding from history is the highest bar of all.

ON THE 2014 COUNTY QUESTIONS HOW I WOULD VOTE. By Geniusofdespair

Genius: A big fat NO on all of them. Don't mess with article 7. They are chipping away at this very important Amendment to the Home Rule Charter, also know as the Dan Paul Amendment, that protects Parks. DON'T CHANGE IT.  NO NO NO on all of them.   The Home Rule Charter's Article 7 does not need changing.

County Questions: 
Charter Amendment to Article 7 to Allow Libraries in Parks Article 7 of the Charter currently provides that parks shall be used for public park purposes only and limits construction at parks to certain permissible facilities. Shall Article 7 of the Charter be amended to: 

(1) permit parks to also be used for library purposes; and (2) add libraries constructed within recreation facilities to the list of those permissible facilities at parks?
Genius: (THIS FIRST ONE IS SOOO BAD, NEXT IT WILL BE SCHOOLS AND HEALTH CENTERS. THERE WON'T BE ANY PARK SPACE LEFT. ARTICLE 7 IS A GODSEND, RESPECT IT.)

Charter Amendment Exempting Miami Dade Regional Soccer Park from Article 7
Except for parks explicitly exempted by the Charter, Article 7 provides that parks
shall be used for public park purposes only and construction within those parks is limited to certain enumerated facilities. Shall the Charter be amended to also exempt the Regional Soccer Park on NW 58th Street from the provisions and restrictions of Article 7?

Charter Amendment on Protecting Preservation Lands and Allowing Campgrounds and Lodges/Cabins in Camp Matecumbe 
 Article 7 of the Charter currently provides that parks shall be used for public park purposes only and limits construction at parks to certain permissible facilities. Shall the Charter be amended to: (1) further restrict development and use of County designated preservation lands that would adversely impact natural resources; and (2) add the construction of campgrounds and cabins/lodges at Camp Matecumbe to the list of those permissible facilities at parks

Charter Amendment Exempting from Article 7 Florida International University’s Expansion onto Youth Fair Site

The Dade County Youth Fair site at Tamiami Park is exempt from the public park purposes use restrictions and construction limitations in Article 7 of the Charter. Shall the Charter be amended to:
• Extend this exemption to Florida International University (FIU) for its expansion onto up to 64 acres of such site upon relocation of the Youth Fair; and
• Provide that no County funds be used for FIU’s expansion and the Youth Fair’s required
relocation?
             Genius: DO NOT APPROVE BONDS OR VOTE IN FAVOR OF BONDS
Funding Court Projects through Issuance of General Obligation Bonds
Shall the County fund emergency repairs to the 1928 Courthouse and the acquisition and construction of new court facilities by issuing, in one or more series, General Obligation Bonds paid or secured by taxes derived from the assessed value of property in the County (advalorem taxes), potentially increasing property taxes, in a principal amount up to 393 million dollars, bearing interest not exceeding maximum legal rate, and maturing within 30 years from issuance?  (The Miami Herald agrees with me: A NO  on this one)

Nov. 4th: Vote "YES" for Amendment One … by gimleteye

I have always been clear: Gimleteye is a pen name. If readers are interested, they can click the tab, 'about the bloggers', for more information. I have a webpage where OPEDs published elsewhere are archived: alanfarago.wordpress.com The following OPED appeared in an earlier draft on this blog.

From Context Florida:
Alan Farago: GOP forcing Floridians to use Amendment 1 to conserve vital lands


The Tampa Bay Times is recommending a “no” vote for a constitutional amendment before voters in November.

The proposal put forward by conservationists would allocate one-third of the documentary stamp tax required of real estate transactions to be applied to acquisition of conservation lands. In 2016, the newspaper notes, more than $600 million could be allocated to this important purpose.

The Times makes two principal arguments: first, that a referendum should not be used to determine the state budget and second, what politics giveth (the documentary stamp tax), politics can taketh away.

I agree with the Times that the Legislature is responsible for the budget. Did Gov. Rick Scott and the majority of the Legislature reflect the will of the people when they radically cut Forever Florida, the state’s land acquisition program and a model for the nation? No.

What they did was to solidify the hammerlock of big campaign contributors, like Big Sugar, to thwart and delay and increase the price of the only reasonable chance for restoring the Everglades: land acquisition.

Example 1: in 2008, then Gov. Charlie Crist announced a bold plan to acquire the sugar lands owned by U.S. Sugar Corporation. His opponents killed the plan for two main reasons. Some said it was too expensive and others said it was not expensive enough!

Gov. Rick Scott, who knew zilch about land conservation or the history of bipartisan struggle to secure land protection through Forever Florida, killed the Crist plan in short order.

Instead of buying the U.S. Sugar land, Floridians are now watching the company roll out its demand for state approval for new development rights involving 18,000 acres it owns in Hendry County. The company’s efforts have been lubricated by outings to the King Ranch in Texas that the corporation provided to top GOP legislators and Scott. There, if gullible Florida voters are to believe it, they only discussed hunting not bid’ness.

Floridians are turning to referendums because the power of special interest money has deformed our democracy. The Tampa Bay Times does not like using the ballot box to legislate. And, yes, what politics giveth, politics may taketh away.

That’s what happened when Scott and the Legislature scuttled growth management and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, after environmentalists tried to use a referendum — Florida Hometown Democracy — to put the power of community growth in the hands of voters instead of land speculators and developers.

It is also what happened with Fair Districts, a referendum that passed with more than 60 percent of voters’ approval, and then devolved into years of intransigence by Scott and the GOP.

Remember: it takes a village to raise a child. It takes an army of voters to protect the village. The majority of Floridians have no other way to demonstrate their displeasure with an extremist Legislature other than at the ballot box. Vote “for” Amendment One.
Let Floridians act to save what the extreme right won’t.

Alan Farago writes the daily blog, Eye On Miami, under the pen name, Gimleteye. He is president of Friends of the Everglades, a grass roots conservation organization based in Miami, FL. A long-time writer and advocate for Florida’s environment, his work is archived at alanfarago.wordpress.com Column courtesy of Context Florida.

The Questions on the 11/4/2014 Ballot: How I would vote. By Geniusofdespair

Genius of Despair, how I would vote: On The Constitutional Amendments 1 YES, 2 YES, 3 NO.  On 3: "Harry Lee Anstead, former justice of the Florida Supreme Court from 1994 to 2009, condemned the amendment as a "partisan political power grab. " 

FINAL

Master Ballot

11/04/2014 General Election

STATE: PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

No. 1
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 28
Water and Land Conservation

Dedicates funds to acquire and restore Florida conservation and recreation lands Funds the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to acquire, restore, improve, and manage conservation lands
including wetlands and forests; fish and wildlife habitat; lands protecting water resources and drinking water sources, including the Everglades, and the water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams; beaches and shores; outdoor recreational lands; working farms and ranches; and historic or geologic sites, by dedicating 33 percent of net revenues from the existing excise tax on documents for 20 years.This amendment does not increase or decrease state revenues. The state revenue restricted to the purposes specified in the amendment is estimated to be $648 million in Fiscal Year 2015-16 and grows to $1.268 billion by the twentieth year. Whether this results in any additional state expenditures depends upon future legislative actions and cannot be determined. Similarly, the impact on local government revenues, if any, cannot be determined. No additional local government costs are expected.

No. 2
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 29
Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions

Allows the medical use of marijuana for individuals with debilitating diseases as determined by a licensed Florida physician. Allows caregivers to assist patients’ medical use of marijuana. The Department of Health shall register and regulate centers that produce and distribute marijuana for medical purposes and shall issue identification cards to patients and caregivers. Applies only to Florida law. Does not authorizeviolations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana.Increased costs from this amendment to state and local governments cannot be determined. There will be additional regulatory and enforcement activities associated with the production and sale of medical marijuana. Fees will offset at least a portion of the regulatory costs. While sales tax may apply to purchases, changes in revenue cannot reasonably be determined since the extent to which medical marijuana will be exempt from taxation is unclear without legislative or state administrative action.

No. 3 (The League of Women Voters Opposes It)

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE V, SECTIONS 10, 11
Prospective Appointment of Certain Judicial Vacancies

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution requiring the Governor to prospectively fill vacancies in a judicial office to which election for retention applies resulting from the justice’s or judge’s reaching the mandatory retirement age or failure to qualify for a retention election; and allowing prospective appointments if a justice or judge is not retained at an election. Currently, the Governor may not fill an expected vacancy until the current justice’s or judge’s term expires.

The scheme proposed in Amendment 3 gives a departing governor the power to tip the scales of justice for partisan reasons on the way out the door — with impunity. And, therein lies the easily identified real intent of this amendment. Partisan advocates, frustrated by the public's rejection of their attempt to remove these same three Florida justices in their retention elections in 2012, have audaciously found another scheme to achieve their goals of stacking the court politically.

It is a one-time gamble and a shortsighted strategy on multiple levels. First, it presumes Gov. Rick Scott is re-elected so that he can make the appointments at the end of his second term. More importantly, it cynically ignores the possibility that an informed Florida public will reject this blatant attempt to politicize the judiciary.  -
Harry Lee Anstead

ON THE COUNTY QUESTIONS HOW I WOULD VOTE:

Genius: A big fat NO on all of them. Don't mess with article 7. They are chipping away at this very important Amendment to the Home Rule Charter, also know as the Dan Paul Amendment, that protects Parks. DON'T CHANGE IT.  NO NO NO  

County Questions: 
Charter Amendment to Article 7 to Allow Libraries in Parks Article 7 of the Charter currently provides that parks shall be used for public park purposes only and limits construction at parks to certain permissible facilities. Shall Article 7 of the Charter be amended to: 

(1) permit parks to also be used for library purposes; and (2) add libraries constructed within recreation facilities to the list of those permissible facilities at parks?
Genius: (THIS FIRST ONE IS SOOO BAD, NEXT IT WILL BE SCHOOLS AND HEALTH CENTERS. THERE WON'T BE ANY PARK SPACE LEFT. ARTICLE 7 IS A GODSEND, RESPECT IT.)

Charter Amendment Exempting Miami Dade Regional Soccer Park from Article 7
Except for parks explicitly exempted by the Charter, Article 7 provides that parks
shall be used for public park purposes only and construction within those parks is limited to certain enumerated facilities. Shall the Charter be amended to also exempt the Regional Soccer Park on NW 58th Street from the provisions and restrictions of Article 7?

Charter Amendment on Protecting Preservation Lands and Allowing Campgrounds and Lodges/Cabins in Camp Matecumbe 
 Article 7 of the Charter currently provides that parks shall be used for public park purposes only and limits construction at parks to certain permissible facilities. Shall the Charter be amended to: (1) further restrict development and use of County designated preservation lands that would adversely impact natural resources; and (2) add the construction of campgrounds and cabins/lodges at Camp Matecumbe to the list of those permissible facilities at parks

Charter Amendment Exempting from Article 7 Florida International University’s Expansion onto Youth Fair Site

The Dade County Youth Fair site at Tamiami Park is exempt from the public park purposes use restrictions and construction limitations in Article 7 of the Charter. Shall the Charter be amended to:
• Extend this exemption to Florida International University (FIU) for its expansion onto up to 64 acres of such site upon relocation of the Youth Fair; and
• Provide that no County funds be used for FIU’s expansion and the Youth Fair’s required
relocation?
             Genius: DO NOT APPROVE BONDS OR VOTE IN FAVOR OF BONDS
Funding Court Projects through Issuance of General Obligation Bonds
Shall the County fund emergency repairs to the 1928 Courthouse and the acquisition and construction of new court facilities by issuing, in one or more series, General Obligation Bonds paid or secured by taxes derived from the assessed value of property in the County (advalorem taxes), potentially increasing property taxes, in a principal amount up to 393 million dollars, bearing interest not exceeding maximum legal rate, and maturing within 30 years from issuance?


Gimleteye on the Amendments:

Amendment 1  YES
Amendment 2  YES