Well.

[evilstoryteller]

It seems Christmas has come early.

Full List

I find it interesting that the reform candidate, Linn, managed to get 91,677 votes- and that the three other independent candidates (Smith, Dembinsky, and Behm) had votes numbering higher that 10,000. Clearly these numbers are not enough to win. But it is encouraging.

EDIT: No, I take that back, Once again we get screwed on the amendments. I suppose you can't have everything.

Comments

[mariness.livejournal.com]

I get hopeful every time I see an independent candidate get over 1% of the vote -- and if you look at the national elections, this happened in quite a few elections. (And if we count Bernie Sanders, an Independent even won for Senate in Vermont.)

But I'll be more hopeful when/if I see third parties backing candidates in more districts and regularly garnering over 10% of the vote.

[mariness.livejournal.com]

On the full list, I am depressed that so many Florida incumbents received such strong support -- 60 to 70% in some cases, despite being part of a pretty useless Congress.

I really wanted more incumbents kicked out.

[evilstoryteller.livejournal.com]

I think the part that bothers me the most is the blanket YES results for the amendments- most of them benefit only a specific section of our population, or are so nebulous they border on laughable. The most repugnant one- a further exemption that solely benefits seniors housing, received 76% of the vote. Granted, we have a high population of seniors in this state (hence the 76%), but it's still depressing to see. Mainly because you can guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that a percent of the vote cast in favor was from the under 65 crowd, and they really should know better. Because amendments like that only make the affordable housing market for the under 65 crowd more difficult.

[unsigned.livejournal.com]

What bothered me about this amendment is that it centered on 'low income' seniors.

Meaning, if I don't work, but I have 2.5 million in my account, well fuck, I'm a low income senior and I get another tax break.

Nevermind about single mom's struggling to make ends meet, or father's that are paying exhorbant amounts in child support, but can't claim those children as dependents. Or other low income households with children.

So instead we provide yet another benefit to an already overpotected class of people, based on age. This is stupidity in action.

[lordsnotrag.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I wasn't real happy about the senior benefit without any consideration for everyone else. Especially since I just got my property tax bill. Frickin' insanity.

[unsigned.livejournal.com]

Yeah,

Unfortunately our generation doesn't vote in mass numbers, and most of us don't always read everything put in front of us.

Stoopid us.

[mariness.livejournal.com]

I voted against the seniors housing on the grounds that a) it would simply create more paperwork for everybody, b) many of the municipalities it would impact really do need that tax revenue to provide services needed by seniors, and c) as you note, it only benefited a section of the population.

I'm fairly sure that the emiment domain amendment will be tossed out; aside from the problem that it was poorly written, from my understanding it goes against current case law and is going to cause major legal issues.

HAHAHA.

[unsigned.livejournal.com]

First, I hope that was brevity, the first point, becuase that's a really friviously reason. And I'm not sure it's gonna cause any more paper work. But what I might do is sell my place to my father for $1, and get that rebate.

Second point, with the recently departed housing boom, property taxes are at record highs in Florida, so much so that most municipalities, including mine (in deaths waiting room), are provisioning tax rebates and tax cuts. So, except perhaps in the case of Liberty City, or similar areas that have remained undeveloped, and did not likely (I can't say for certain) profit from the land/housing grab, no municipality is in dire need of these revenues. We can easily afford to give people in a certain economic situation tax breaks on property taxes. Although that then becomes an incentive to work for cash.

Aside from the aforementioned protected status of these people, the wording alone provides sufficient reason to not vote for it. Low income was apparently defined as $25,000 or less, for seniors citizens. That means if they have 2 million in their savings account drawing 1% interest (maybe), then they're considered low income, if indeed interest is will be considered income.

Second, there are plenty of single people, not to mention single moms with children, etc, and even families, that barely make this amount and can only afford to buy places where these "low income" seniors are living, but cannot because these seniors have a protected status that is, they're allowed to have 55+ homes that they don't need. I have no problems with having 55+ reserved CONDO buildings like Century Village. But some of the neighborhoods where this is occuring are family orientated, where kids can have a yard, and a place to play with their dog, rather than being locked away in a condo building unable to run, play, or otherwise excercise because their parents can't see them, and who the hell knows who's living there. This results in cheating kids out of being kids, and no doubt contributes to the gamecube/playstation/xbox proliferation of obesity. Now I'm not saying its the sole cause, but I'd wager it's a contributing factor.

Also, regarding imminent domain, Florida is not the only state to provide an amendment to address the issue. I'm surprised it took this long.

Additionally, the case law is on the books because there is nothing saying they cannot do this in the U.S. Constitution (even though I think there's plenty in there under the whole fourth amendment. A 5/4 decision is shaky. However, the issue is clearly a states rights issue, and I seriously doubht that the U.S. Supreme court will hear a case where the State Constitution has been amended to prevent this. Since clearly this isn't a portable right, it's a right that is permanently related to the state, and whomever lives there. By portable I mean, that a decision in Florida, cannot affect someone in another state. The only reason it ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court is because there were no laws stating that states could not do the state that it originated. At least as far as I understand the case.


blah! POLY-TICKS.

Re: HAHAHA.

[mariness.livejournal.com]

Point one: Well, yes, I was being frivolous. My other points weren't. On the property tax issue -- Florida consists of many, many counties outside of Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, and many of these counties in North Florida are hurting for county tax revenue; Lake County was against this tax for a reason. So if you look at the overall state situation, yes, it is dumb to give a property tax break of this sort given the finances of certain counties. I'm not talking about Boca which is entirely different; if Boca wants to reduce record high property taxes, that's different. If I'm going to be looking at a law impacting Florida, I'm going to look at its impact on the entire state, not just South Florida.

On your last paragraph, reread the 4th Amendment and the takings clause. The Supreme Court has determined that the takings cause does relate to land use and eminent domain; the problem is interpretation, and different cases have found different meanings for the takings clause. And you are wrong: the Supreme Court has heard many cases where state constitutions have been amended. Given that this amendment was placed on the ballot because of controversy over a recent and controversial decision by the Supreme Court over the takings clause, and given that two new justices are now on the court, this might well go to the Supreme Court, since Samuel Alito made it clear that he would like to think about this.