and out came the wolves..

It looks as if Rush Limbaugh has come out of his oxycontin induced hibernation early this year. Probably stirred awake by Sean Hannity’s rah-rah-republican cheerleading and Michael Savage’s verbal chainsaw (which few may know is fueled by the blood of the Homo-Leninist Mafioso’s) leveling the forests of social equality.

Less than a week after the elections, the far right-dominated am radio waves were already sounding the alarms; “the first post-election stock market plunge in history!”, “cult of personality!”, “who is Barack Obama?” apparently the third-trimester abortion of the real estate market, general motors reporting record losses quarter after quarter, and the golden parachutes given to the banking and investment industry have very little to do with the recession. No, no, the economic system is collapsing - Rush tells us - because it anticipates the tax increases Mr. Obama pledges on capital gains and for the highest income earners. No mention of the 50% drop in the DJIA since last year during W’s last term. No mention of the simultaneous news release of 3rd quarter job-loss reaching a 14-year low. Sean Hannity, who is most likely NOT making references to Atlas Shrugged, is constantly repeating “Who is Barack Obama?” almost furiously, as if to suggest that there is a lack of available and credible information on him. Anyone who really does not know the answer to this question need look no farther than the internet, a wealth of information.

At first I was scared of what these screaming heads were saying, but then I thought about it a little harder, and actually listened to fear that was in their voice, the utter fear that their blanket of neo-conservatism over America had come apart at the seams and an overwhelming majority of Americans said: “No more!” The alarm! The confusion! Hearing them scramble for answers in their final moments I was suddenly reminded of Colonel Kurtz's dying words: "..the horror...the horror..." But still the went on, not accepting their fate, “How could this have happened?!” they ask. “Sarah Palin was chosen by God himself!” Then I realized that the alarm they were sounding reminded me of something:

Sweet, delicious victory.

The siren-song of the defeated right lured me off of my vessel and forced me to forget Troy, what we had been fighting for all along, and to indulge in - even if for a moment - the beauty of it all! And then the tug at my ankle; the tether I tied to the mast of ship to keep me grounded, brought me back so I could focus on the real issue at hand: exposing slanderous tabloid news hiding under the guise of information gathering.

So say goodnight to all the Rush Limbaugh’s, Sean Hannity’s and Bill O’Reilly’s out there: Light ‘em if you got ‘em boys, the sun is setting on american conservatism and a new era of political and social intellectuals are paving the way for a multi-lateral non-partisan government. Conservatism does exactly what it says, conserves. It conserves old ideas and old ways of looking at life and deems progressive thought as heresy and immoral. Good riddance.

Make way for American Progressivism. Make way for freedom of scientific research to help find cures for cancer and AIDS. Make way for lowered poverty and unemployment rates and a more proportionate distribution of wealth. Make way for – dare I say – a regulated market! Make way for new patriotism that isn’t sparked by a national tragedy, but out of respect for our leader. Make way America.

Sorry man, I don't have any change

This is a line I'm forced say far too often. 

But first, a little prologue.

My daily routine proceeds as follows: Wake up, gussy myself up to appear at least as presentable as a side of mashed potatoes (with the lumps, of course), and make my way to Ye Olde Coffee Shoppe*.

Now, whilst sitting outside of YOCS I do a number of different things, though keeping myself abreast of the previous day's sporting news and whomping the Orlando Sentinel crossword are constant. Keeping this in mind, note that both aforementioned activities require me to keep my head down, poring over whatever might be laid flat on the table before me. This has sparked the development of a new, uh, 6th sense**?

With eyes fixed downward, my ears have reluctantly been trained to hear the difference between the purposeful footsteps of those who work for a living and are traveling to a specific destination, and the aimless, shuffle-footed shambling of the homeless.  In reference to the latter, my attention remains on the piece of paper in front of me, because to make eye-contact with a bum is to invite said bum to approach me.  However, this action (or inaction, as it were) is only mildly effective.  These human turkey buzzards still saunter up, and will open with variety of lines, ranging from, "Excuse me sir, I'm an artist and poet.  If you could spare some change, I'd be happy to recite a few lines of poetry for you" to "Yo man, gimme a cigarette".

I feel that the homeless hold my time hostage, heartily heaving wholesale shamelessness in my direction.  One cigarette is a small ransom to pay in order to be left alone.  Though as the day progresses, this presents a problem; I end up giving out way too many smokes.

I'm not so near-sighted as to believe I've invented the way to handle this, but I suppose I could say I independently discovered a solution: the decoy pack.  Simply keep your full pack of smokes in your pocket, and an empty pack on the table.  This nullifies any request in that you open the decoy pack and say something to effect of "Sorry dude, last one".  But, as we all know, some people just won't take no for an answer.

This is when I feel my strongest urges to kill.  And not just the easy bing bang boom GSW to the ol' noodle, but a really rewarding murder.  Something like shattering your quarry's jaw and hands, then plopping him in front of a buffet.  This way you can watch as the fucker fruitlessly tries, amid the worst pain of his life, to sustain himself.  Oh, the satisfaction of seeing a vagrant starve to death with tuna salad dripping off of his fractured mandible.

Wow.  Reading what I just wrote, I think I need to stop and chill out.  Uhhh, just kidding?

     

*The actual name of the the coffee shop will go unspecified, as I'm not being paid to advertise. Henceforth it shall be referred to as YOCS.

**Maybe not a whole sense, per se, as it requires the use of the other, more commonly accepted senses. Lets call it my 5 and 3/8ths sense.

The Road and the road

So I've just finished The Road and it's absolutely fantastic. It's by Cormac McCarthy, who also wrote No Country for Old Men...which is also fantastic. But The Road is better. McCarthy has this wonderful way of writing, and it's really more like prose, or at least the two books i've read are in that style. He composes epics, and he refuses to use dialog. But the best thing about The Road is it's truly crushing view of a post-apocalyptic landscape. but the best thing about The Road is how perfectly it describes the virtue of a small kindness. but the best thing about The Road is that it is impacting. Few of the novels I've read were anything more than an anecdote, and I've read plenty. It puts The Road in a category of mine that's shorter than a hand. the most interesting character in No Country was an autistic murderer. and the most interesting character in The Road
is hope.

shit made me cry

no kidding

nancy grace is poisoning american journalism

...somewhere in abaddon on a frigid october night in 1959, the young tabloid-demon let forth a thunderous petition to the empty sky and birthed its fire breathing progeny. the demon vowed to set her daughter forth to destroy american journalism and when this broodlings name is mentioned it turns the blood of the virtuous to ice and the corrupt and panderous come running to kiss the fishermans ring fasted upon her cold, bony right hand. the demon deceivingly named her seed… nancy grace.

ok enough.

anyone who knows me, is well aware of my undying hate for - above all else - these two things:

1. the unapologetic melodramatics like ben gibbard
2. the post-peter Jennings prejudicial news outlets that have become ravingly popular in the last few years. (i.e., sean hannity, rush limbaugh and the demon spawn nancy grace)

i always knew nancy grace was full of shit, but just recently its been making my blood boil. for instance, casey anthony… at first i thought it was just because i live in orlando, because this case was getting more airtime and local exposure than the $3.00 gas at the ferncreek and colonial chevron, and was really starting to wear on everyone’s intellect. but then the paragon of journalistic integrity, the soul-squandering sinner herself, nancy grace broke the story nationally and was officially the first to jump on the missing girl bandwagon, as she always is. Iidon’t feel like i need to explain the details of the case to you, as im sure you already know them, but if you don’t, go to casey anthony’s wikipedia page, yes, you read that correctly, casey anthony’s wikipedia page.

okay so now that you’ve read up on floridas latest white-trash celebrity, you probably are wondering the same thing i was: how can casey anthony get charged with murder 1 and aggravated manslaughter for one child whos body has not been recovered for evidence on said murder? i did some research on WestLaw and the legal library my law office has and came up with some interesting facts. two words: corpus delicti, or “body of crime”. not a literal body, but a figurative one:

“…refers to an act or omission to act (failure to act), and it also requires criminal agency to be in the mind. That is, there must be intent, criminal negligence, or strict liability.”

black’s law dictionary (6th ed.) refers to corpus delicti as:

"…the fact of a crime having been actually committed."

so in this case the grand jury found evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that casey anthony did in fact commit murder under the corpus delicti definition. im not sure how i feel about this. what if, because of nancy graces speculative journalism and unearthing myspace photos of “tot mom alleged sexy partying!” - which was an actual headline on her show under the heading of BREAKING NEWS - that the jury actually finds casey anthony guilty, zaps her in the next life and then a week later they find caylee hanging from a ceiling fan by her pigtails in some pedophiles house in casselberry? what then, oops? understand im not defending casey anthony’s actions by any means because the simple fact is shes a moron and the worst parent since andrea yates. my point is: we don’t need nancy grace spewing her rhetorical vomit swaying the publics opinion about parenting and the judicial system to understand these facts. any marginally responsible parent wouldve done everything she didn’t do. the florida state attorneys office has been throwing the book at casey anthony since late july and nothing has stuck, theyve got to be proud now, but really, what if? but i can see through all of this. first of all, there are 390 people on death row in florida and only one is a woman. in fact, florida has only executed two women in the modern era, so heres my point: the state attorneys office pushed for murder on the chance she gets charged by the grand jury, the state can finally hold her on remand and save getting her bail posted (which so far totals at $1,000,400) by no-named yahoos wanting to jump on the celebrity bandwagon along with our friend nancy. which brings me to my next point; the only thing about this case that makes me angrier than nancy grace is the jackasses nosing into this anyway they can just to get a little free airtime. as if dan newlins giant forehead and thinning, wispy, crypt-keeper hair wasn’t enough to attract attention to the Morgan & Morgan law firm, john morgan has to get his melting face on the tabloid circuit representing zenaida gonzalez in a defamation suit against casey anthony.

we are walking into dangerous territory here. when you expose a local case like this nationally before any court proceedings, you run the risk of not being able to find an unbiased jury. look we all know that oj simpson shouldve been rotting in a cell over a decade ago, but honestly, do you really think the jury in his most recent case wasnt biased? to be fair, i wouldve sent him to jail anyways, biased or not. but by nancy grace insisting that this girl killed her daughter before the grand jurys indictment hearing, is it possible that there were a few people on the jury who actually believed her and ignored the reasonable doubt they may have ever had? i believe so. watching nancy grace should be an expellable bias in voir dire hearings. anyways, the whole point to this is that she should be taken off the air, or at least start practicing sound journalism. personally id like to see her tried for jury tampering in addition to her wrongful death suit of melinda duckett, who was another florida mother of a missing boy who pulled a hemmingway after being grilled live on grace’s show. secondly, ambulance chasing attorneys have no place sticking their nose in a capital murder case under the guise of a defamation suit just to get noticed, and third and most important: theres a landmark presidential election going on and it seems that on some days it gets overshadowed by tabloid news.

im seeing similarities between the timing of this case with the 2008 elections and the carlie bruscia murder in sarasota during the 2004 elections. these cases are blown out of proportion as a political distraction. children are reported missing and get killed by their parents every day - whether intentional or accidental - more often than once every election year, this is the sad truth. lets at least put a spin on this if its going to be in the public eye for so long, lets actually relate the nonsense media hype to politics for once and see if makes an impact. im going to say that little caylee is this years political groundhog, just as in 2004 it was carlie bruscia. if punxsutawnee phil can predict six more weeks of winter maybe the fate of these little girls can predict the outcome of the political climate. could a dead caylee mean mccain takes the presidency? or could finding caylee alive mean a win for obama? i guess well have to tune into “headline news” to find out.

if you think this is taking it to far, youre right it is, and no thanks to ms. grace who has practically made it this way. down with speculative journalism and trash media! the irony behind all this is that she actually co-authored a book entitled: “Objection! -- How High-Priced Defense Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal Justice System” in which she referred to defense lawyers as "pigs" and compared defense attorneys to Nazi concentration camp guards. i take this personally because i work in a firm that deals solely in defense for medical malpractice suits and it is hard, respectable work, much more than i can say for her work on her television show where she has been blatantly one sided on issues, ignoring the facts presented and in a few instances humiliated when it all gets thrown in her face. for example, melinda duckett, the duke lacrosse rape case and elizabeth smart owning her on live tv insisting that she was sticking her forked prosecutorial tongue where it didn’t belong.

in short, do yourself and everyone else a favor if you watch nancy grace, turn it off and take a stand for responsible journalism and watch anderson cooper, who may just be the last great television journalist.

Titles are Pretentious

Reading the title of this post, one might presume that I am piss-and-vinegar incarnate, with a belly full of angst. Or perhaps I'm the pretentious one, projecting my insecurities on anything commonplace, say, titles of blogs. I think the more reasonable explanation is that I couldn't conceive an appropriate title, and just copped out.
That being said, maybe I ought to indulge myself for a moment and explain who I am. This is my first post, after all. My name is Jason. Pleasure to meet you.
Right. Now lets get down to brass tacks. I am (pause for dramatic effect) a Libertarian. Take a few moments to ridicule and deride me, if you know where Libertarians stand on the political spectrum. If not, here's a primer:
Not that I quote Reagan too often, but I believe his old axiom goes, "The government that governs least, governs best". We all know that the Gipper didn't exactly practice what he preached, but I guess it's the thought that counts.
I feel that the folks we elect to public office do more harm than good, constitutionally speaking, and the folks those folks appoint to governmental positions aren't any better. I'm pretty capable of making my own decisions, so the fewer federal burrocrats*, the better. I find taxes deplorable and tantamount to theft. Federal law ought not trump state law. Blaaaarrarrrggg. I swear I, just now, hurled on the keyboard, and the last couple lines of this half-assed exposition were typed by the chunks I just blew. Moving on.
What was I talking about? Ah, yes. That mile-deep abyss called third party politics. You can probably see where I stand on (taxpayer backed) monetary issues. Goldwater ring a bell? On the other hand I'm about as left as left gets on the social end of things. Are all men created equal, or or all straight men created equal? In this case, to legislate based on morality is bigotry. Long story short, I'm pro-choice on just about everything.
My battery is running out of power (in several ways), so I've got to wrap things up. Damn the man. Hope to write again soon, but don't hold your breath. Peace out.


*Poster's note: This is not a typo. Check your Spanish-to-English dictionary, sans the crat part.

and so I was watching excerpts from a mccain palin rally, and the things that the crowd was saying were terrifying, and I wonder how these people can call themselves religious. I realize the how easy it is to whip a crowd into a foolish frenzy, but still it amazes me that these people, whom I assume would predominately describe themselves as christians, if not moralists, would find it ok to call for the murder of someone else. and that's not to say that the other side doesn't have crazies of it's own. It surely does. but my wonder is why these people, the bits of the mob (and by this I mean the entirety of those claiming to be of a moral religion) find it so hard to act in a righteous fashion. Why are christians so afraid of acting like christ? Of all these dogma's that I've experienced in my life, of all the views on the mystery of all this, they all seem a perversion of the one true religion, the one that is so much brighter than these forced complications. and it's only a few words long...and it is far prettier, and given the power i would sear it into the sky and tattoo it under the eyelids of every creature on this plane.

be kind

please be kind

wait.. what am i voting on?

so im assuming since youre reading this blog, youre registered to vote. and since yore registered to vote, im also sure youve received your sample ballot in the mail. now unless you scored a perfect verbal on the sats, ill go even so far as to say that youre a bit confused by the whole thing. this is my attempt to explain it all in relatively simple english so you dont have to clog up the line at your precinct next month struggling to remember the grammar chapter in your sat prep book only to get glared at by irate geriatrics holding colostomy bags or anxious first time voters waiting to have their voice heard (but next year theyll learn about the electoral college and why even though their canidate won the popular vote the other guy won) while exiting your booth.

up this year is the outright evil amendment 2, (if you havent heard of it youve either been living under a rock for the last few months or you dont live in florida.) the cunning wolf in sheeps clothing amendment 6, and a few others which are listed below. i have first the amendment as it appears on your sample ballot, second is my transliteration of the ballot-speak, and last, my unwarranted, possibly offensive opinion. take it for what it is.

in the next few days i will hopefully find the time in between work and work and work to research some of the canidates and the incumbents up for election as well. so far this is what i have, if you find something wrong dont call me an idiot, correct me and it will be duly noted, but i do implore you.

so here it is:

2008 FLORIDA BALLOT AMENDMENTS
Or: How I Overcame Convoluted Ballot-Speak and Learned to Love Politics
by Ryan McKee

Proposed Amendments:

Amendment 1

How the ballot reads:

NO. 1
Constitutional Amendment
Article 1, Section 2

Declaration of Rights

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to delete provisions authorizing the Legislature to regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship.

Yes O
No O

How the Florida State Constitution currently reads:

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2. Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.


Translation of the Amendment:

When we enter the polls, Amendment 1 is asking for the addition to the Florida State Constitution that nullifies the line in A1,S2 that is highlighted in red. By voting NO on Amendment 1 the voter is saying they would want to keep the Constitution the same. Voting YES, the voter is saying that they would prefer the line in red is nullified from the Constitution.



In my opinion:

I recommend reading the citizen eligibility requirements to become a US citizen before making a decision on this. Research is KEY to understanding the repercussions on keeping or striking this line, e.g., when and why it was instated. Also know that the way the line in red is worded doesn’t enforce the prohibition or regulation per se: (“…may be regulated or prohibited…”) The line is purposely vague to accommodate for extenuating circumstances, for example, not all aliens ineligible for citizenship are discriminated against having property rights, but in some extreme cases it may be regulated or prevented all together. I have a hard time believing that the state would rape a legal hard-working alien of their property rights because of an archaic line in our Constitution. With the right attorney, this line can be interpreted to actually work in the benefit of the person(s) being discriminated against. Call me crazy, but I’m no racist, nor am I a xenophobe. Even though I’m still a bit confused about this one, I would feel comfortable leaving the line in and if it happens to come up in litigation in the future, let the Judicial Branch sort it out and set its precedence..

Amendment 2

How the ballot reads:

NO. 2
Constitutional Amendment
Article I, New Section

Florida Marriage Protection Amendment

This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minor.

Yes O
No O

There is currently no section in the Florida Constitution outlining the rights of marriage. Amendment 2 proposes adding a section to the Florida Constitution outlining this. Basically, if you want marriage to be protected as stated above, vote YES, if you disagree to these terms, vote NO.

In my opinion:

This bill is not about gay rights, it goes deeper than that. Everyone as well as conservatives should be frightened by the passing of this amendment. Regardless of your views on awarding marriage licenses to only a man and woman, Amendment 2 goes on to say it will take away the rights of any currently accepted form of domestic partnership regardless of sex in any of these unions, such as civil unions, common-law marriages, registered partnerships, etc. Any of the aforementioned types of currently recognized unions in Florida bring tax benefits to the table as well as reduction in insurance costs across the board. Essentially, voting NO on Amendment 2 will ensure that anyone sharing a home (regardless of their genders) with another person for the required amount of years will be considered stable and accountable and will receive the same tax benefits a married couple would. The law in Florida currently puts a ban on same sex marriage, so what is the point of extending that infringement of rights to heterosexual friends that have been living together for years, or a man and a woman who don’t find marriage necessary and consider a verbal commitment enough? In my opinion the law defining marriage solely between a man and a woman is a civil liberties infraction and the U.S. Supreme Court found in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that “moral disapproval” was an unconstitutional basis for condemning a group of people. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion in the case Romer v. Evans (1996) “I think it is no business of the courts (as opposed to the political branches) to take sides in this culture war” I am voting NO on Amendment 2.

Amendment 3

How the ballot reads:

NO. 3
Constitutional Amendment
Article VII, Sections 3 and 4
Article XII, New Section

Changes and Improvements Not Affecting the Assessed Value of Residential Real Property

Authorizes the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit consideration of changes or improvements to residential real property which increase resistance to wind damage and installation of renewable energy source devices as factors in assessing the property’s value for ad valorem taxation purposes. Effective upon adoption, repeals the existing renewable energy source device exemption no longer in effect.

Yes O
No O


How the Florida State Constitution currently reads:

Article VII, Section 3(d)
Taxes; exemptions

(d) By general law and subject to conditions specified therein, there may be granted an ad valorem tax exemption to a renewable energy source device and to real property on which such device is installed and operated, to the value fixed by general law not to exceed the original cost of the device, and for the period of time fixed by general law
not to exceed ten years.

Translation of the Amendment:

When Article VII, Sec. 3(d) was adopted in 1980 it protected homeowners in the state of Florida from paying extra property taxes in the event that they add solar panels or other types of renewable energy sources to their house which would raise the property value, thus raising the property tax, but was not intended to last longer than ten years, or until 1990. An ad valorem tax is a tax based on the real value of the house. On February 27, 2008, the House passed $18.1 billion in renewable energy tax incentives (H.R. 5351), including an extension of the tax credit for energy-efficient home improvements. The bill is similar to the one passed last year, which was ultimately removed from the 2007 Energy Bill, signed into law in December 2007. (energystar.gov) This incentive has been basically pointless, because since the original ad valorem exemption expired in 1990, the tax rebate you were being handed is going right out the door again to pay for the property tax hike on the same item you were getting rebated on!

Amendment 3 will strike Sec. 3(d) and replace it with the proposed amendment which has no lifespan. It will also ensure that the addition of such renewable energy devices is not factored into the ad valorem taxation of the property. The added section to Article XII will allow the installation of protective measures to the house (i.e., hurricane shutters) to fall under the ad valorem tax exemption as well. In less fluffed language, vote NO on Amendment 3 if you want homeowners to pay higher ad valorem taxes for installing renewable energy devices and/or protective measures and vote YES on Amendment 3 if you disagree with the taxation of these implements.

In my opinion:

Simple: Why should homeowners be taxed for using renewable energy sources? Furthermore, in a state prone to hurricanes such as Florida this exemption on safety measures only makes sense. Taxation on safety and conservation is nonsense. If this bill were to get passed, we run the risk of deterring homeowners from pursuing newer forms of energy conservation for fear of higher property taxes. Also, less people would be prone to protecting their house against hurricanes, and could potentially have a worse outcome in the case their area gets hit hard. This amendment should have never had a lifespan on it in the first place. I am voting YES on Amendment 3.

Amendment 4

How the ballot reads:

NO. 4
Constitutional Amendment
Article VII, Sections 3 and 4
Article XII, Section 28

Property Tax Exemption of Perpetually Conserved Land; Classification and Assessment of Land Used for Conservation

Requires Legislature to provide a property tax exemption for real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections, defined by general law. Requires Legislature to provide for classification and assessment of land used for conservation purposes, and not perpetually encumbered, solely on the basis of character or use. Subjects assessment benefit to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions established by general law. Applies to property taxes beginning in 2010.

Yes O
No O

Translation of the Amendment:

Amendment 4 if it is passed will add a subsection; Section 3 [(g)] to Article VII granting property tax exemption for people who dedicate said property to perpetual conservation. Amendment 4 will also add a section (28) to Article XII defining the schedule of this tax exemption to start on January 1, 2010. Vote YES on Amendment 4 to allow the tax exemption for land preservation donors, vote NO on Amendment 4 to refuse the tax exemption for these donors.

In my opinion:

Here’s an easy one, finally, this actually makes perfect sense. The state uses up a lot of our money buying up property to donate to preservation and this essentially gives property owners an incentive to dedicate their land to preservation. I am voting YES on Amendment 4.

Amendment 6

How the ballot reads:

NO. 6
Constitutional Amendment
Article VII, Section 4
Article XII, New Section

Assessment of Working Waterfront Property Based Upon Current Use

Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and water-dependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law.

Yes O
No O


Translation of the Amendment:

Amendment 6 if it is passed would require property appraisers to assess “working waterfront properties” such as marinas, boat launches, and drystacks and tax them according to their use, not to their potential use, say if a luxury condo was built in its place. Amendment 6 would also require commercial marine facilities to fall under property appraiser’s assessment as well, which includes but is not limited to: waterfront restaurants, commercial fishing businesses, and marine construction and repair facilities. Assuming Amendment 6 gets passed, property appraisers could potentially appraise the land that these facilities are operating on to be worth more if waterfront properties were constructed and taxed accordingly, possibly putting these companies or marinas out of business due to hiked taxes. On the other hand, if Amendment 6 does not get passed, it wouldn’t protect the smaller businesses from getting taxed higher resulting in the same problem. Vote YES on Amendment 6 if you want the appraisers to be required to assess working waterfront properties, Vote NO on Amendment 6 if you do not want them to.

In my opinion:

My solution: propose a flat tax rate for all waterfront businesses. When deciding how to vote on Amendment 6, I examined the long-term effects and potential abuses that could arise from either scenario. I came to the conclusion that it would be better to vote NO on Amendment 6 for fear of an eminent domain issue. Worst-case scenario, this amendment could possibly be the beginnings of infringement upon the 5th Amendment Rights of Americans. Other states have a similar amendment proposed to their states constitution as well, including Alabama, California, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas. I would rather not run the risk of abuse of the eminent domain laws that were given precedence in the United States Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London (2005) which prompted heated dissenting opinions from Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. In Kelo, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled with a 5-4 decision that “the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible ‘public use’ under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment”.

Kelo v. City of New London started in Connecticut in 1998 as the city's tax base and population were continually decreasing, and city leaders were growing desperate for a new hope of economic developments. Pfizer sought to acquire 90 acres of land on in the neighborhood of Fort Trumbull which included 115 residential and commercial lots. The city saw this as a potential opportunity for economic growth and created The New London Development Corporation which subsequently made offers to the owners of the properties, but 15 did not wish to sell. Nine of these owners, led by plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London after it decided to exercise its power of eminent domain and condemn the 15 properties. The plaintiffs argued that the power of eminent domain is limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment, which restricts the actions of the federal government, says in part that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation"; under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this limitation is also imposed on the actions of U.S. State and local governments. Kelo and the other appellants argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the New London Development Corporation, did not qualify as public use. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the defense and from there was appealed to the U.S Supreme Court where it also ruled in favor of the city of New London. As a result, the former neighborhood of Fort Trumbull was bulldozed to the ground and its residents permanently relocated. Today, the area that was dozed and that formerly held 115 residential and commercial lots sits EMPTY, generating no tax revenue for the city of New London, essentially making the precedence of Kelo v. City of New London all for naught and opening the door for it to happen again in the future all over the country. Corcoran Jennison, the developer, had failed to obtain financing by the promised deadline, and was said to be technically in default. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN IN FLORIDA AND VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 6!

Amendment 8

How the ballot reads:

Constitutional Amendment
Article VII, Section 9

Local Option Community College Funding

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require that the Legislature authorize counties to levy a local option sales tax to supplement community college funding; requiring voter approval to levy the tax; providing that approved taxes will sunset after 5 years and may be reauthorized by the voters.

Yes O
No O

Translation of the Amendment:

Amendment 8 is proposing to add a subsection [(c)] to Article VII, Sec. 9 that would require each county in which there is a community college to vote to authorize a sales tax that would supplement the schools funding. Amendment 8 also states that the tax would gradually lessen after five years and may be reauthorized by voters after the lifespan is expired. Vote YES on Amendment 8 to propose the tax option and put the responsibility in the local authorities, vote NO on Amendment 8 to keep school funding the states responsibility.

In my opinion:

This is dangerous. If this bill is passed for instance and the voters in a county decide to approve the tax, a community college could launch a new program based on the taxes levied from the community. But after five years, the taxpayers may decide to not renew the appropriations and it could mean the death of the program. I don’t feel comfortable knowing the education of my community relies the fiscal mood of the taxpayers. It is the responsibility of the state to appropriate funds to public schools and this amendment has no place in a state constitution. I am voting NO on Amendment 8.