RE: We Had No Idea (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Sinergy -> RE: We Had No Idea (10/18/2006 2:17:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy


Hello A/all,

The following was sent to me and I wanted to pass it along to the citizens of the State of California.  Measures like it are probably coming to your state soon enough, but in the next election here we have to face this...

Sinergy

-------------------------------------------

From: "Robert Redford, NRDC" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:06:13 -0400 (EDT)

[blah]

Don't wake up the morning after Election Day and wish you'd read the fine
print. Read it now at http://www.noProp90.com/

[more blah]

NRDC has joined with a broad coalition of citizen groups who are fighting hard
to turn back this unprecedented attack on our environment. (You can see the
full list of opponents at http://www.noprop90.com/coalition/index.php)

[more blah]

Sincerely,

Robert Redford

P.S. Newspapers across the state are urging a No vote on 90. You can read their
editorials at
http://www.noprop90.com/media/articles/?set=article_j6dcq2bwmxw4ax


Archer,

Let me see if I understand what you are saying.

1)  You did not bother to read the article

or, if you did

2)  You failed to actually go to the site listed and read the text of the law.

and

3)  Failed to notice that the letter was written by Robert Redford, not me.

4)  Based on this extensive research and clear understanding of the salient facts of the issue,  you decided to post as a response 

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Funny how their is no link in the article to the actual text of the proposition so we can easily do as they suggest and read the source document. That always leads me to suspect a group is less than honest in their opposition to the proposition.

Why would anyone beg you to read the proposition and not provide a direct link?



Where in that was anything at all about you not providing anything at all?????????
You provided the article that you had. I critiqued the article itself not your posting of it.
Had I had a problem with your posting it I would have said YOU should have provided a link.

I recognized that it wasn't your work and thought that the unless you wrote it and attributed it to the other guy would have made that crystal clear.

Did I read the website NO in fact the first post was my reasoning for not reading it. As I stated earlier I prefer direct links (defined as not routing me through a partisan site to build their lobby sales ability based on number of hits their site has, before I can reach it)
I did go and do a quick scan/ read for general context of the actual source document.



I think I completely understand your position on this issue..

Please enjoy the rest of your day,

Sinergy



candystripper -> RE: We Had No Idea (10/18/2006 5:04:51 PM)

"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
 
Well, i would discuss the case law on eminent domain but as Y/you can see, the U.S. Constitution, Amendent Five, guarantees "just compensation" for the taking of private property.  Since that is the case, Sinergy's point seems well-taken; the Proposal in reality seeks to halt environmental regulation, etc.
 
candystripper



michaelGA2 -> RE: We Had No Idea (10/18/2006 5:11:55 PM)

ok (this is not directed at anyone in particular) i've held my comments long enough...LOL

let me get this straight, there's a new proposition in the process of being voted on, right? it was written by politicians, right? soooooooooo, where's the big surprise that it's yet another bad idea proposed by politicians "people" voted for?

this is why i don't waste time voting, only the idiots win an election...the ones that make these stupid policies...and then people complain about what the do. come on people...you voted for them...stop being shocked about what they do. they can't help it...they're politicians, afterall.



juliaoceania -> RE: We Had No Idea (10/18/2006 5:14:34 PM)

No Michael, it was written by lawyers and special interests, enough people signed a petition to have it put on a ballot.. it is what we call more progressive democracy in this state.

We have a legislature, and sometimes I think that Californians should really stand down and let them do their job instead of enacting laws willy nilly on their own with little or no thought



michaelGA2 -> RE: We Had No Idea (10/18/2006 5:17:11 PM)

publically, it was the special interest groups and lawyers...but i'm willing to bet that some politician had his grubby little hands in on creating the proposition...that's the way politics works...cover-up, side-step issues, hide as much as possible.



Archer -> RE: We Had No Idea (10/18/2006 5:17:50 PM)

No Synergy actually you seem to choose not to understand what I have put ion the simplest of terms

I read your post the initial one,
I went to each of the links in the body of the article
NON of them provided a direct link to the source document (please read my idea of what constitutes a direct link in earlier posts here)
I then commented on the posted article with one simple complaint it lacked a direct link
I did not bother reading any of the additional biased information presented by the website that the artiginal article linked to.
I did however find and read the actual source document.

Your failure to note the sarcasm in the statement that unless you wrote it and attributed it to him is entirely your own fun and games,
your failure to recognize the idea that my crtiticism of the article was not criticism of you is apparently your fun and games as well.






UtopianRanger -> RE: We Had No Idea (10/18/2006 5:24:04 PM)



I haven't read the full text version of prop 90, so I'll reserve further comments till later. But if it’s anything like measure 37 here in Oregon {It had a landslide victory}....it's not as bad as the doom and gloom sayers predicted.

http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/guide/meas/m37_text.html




 - R



Archer -> RE: We Had No Idea (10/18/2006 5:34:39 PM)

The problem is the law allows for eminent domain for public use. Now over time the definition of public use has shifted according to Court decissions, seems that this is a case of the Legislature and or some interest groups wanting to better define what is a public use and what is not. Is putting in a new Walmart a suitable use for eminent domain if the city council wants the additioal sales taxes? Or forcing out older owners so that a developer can build houses who's tax roll impact is higher than those currently on the property.
Yatchlubs, Walmarts, and condominum complexes have all been approved based on just this type of use of eminent domain.
Locally eminent domain was used to closed down a family owned drug store, so that a Walgreens could be put in it's place.
Thankfully Georgia put a control on eminent domain similar to the way the proposal reads to me. By placing a tighter definition of what a public use is before the family store was closed down.

Does this mean that there are no snuck in bad aspects to the California proposal? NO But the basis for the law is because eminent domain has been abused, and local councils are usingtax base exansion as an excuse to call the condemnation for a "Public Use".


Yes the "Just Compensation" is a redundancy but if we use redundancy as disqualifier then how many laws get tossed off the books?



ownedgirlie -> RE: We Had No Idea (10/18/2006 7:29:54 PM)

~Fast Reply~

Here is an interesting link:  http://www.montereycountyfarmbureau.org/yes_on_90.htm#Proposition

It is the Monterey County Form Bureau's support of Prop 90.  They list the proposition in full, and list their commentary beside each pertinent paragraph.

Just to balance things out, and all....



ownedgirlie -> RE: We Had No Idea (10/18/2006 7:42:06 PM)

Actually, I found this interesting article, written by Jean Ross of the California Budget Project (CBP).  CBP neither supports nor opposes Prop 90, and this budget brief claims to be an independent analysis.

http://www.cbp.org/publications/documents/0609_bb_prop90_001.pdf#search='california%20proposition%2090%20private%20property'



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125