Florida Constitutional Amendments: Back of the Ballot Explained

I just finished voting, and I realized that one problem I almost always have, even though I pay attention, is decoding those Constitutional Amendments on the ballot. You know; YES ON 2! NO ON 4! All those signs and ads you see are normally put out by special interests that have a stake in these things passing or failing, and there's not a lot of good information out there without heavy spin. So, for your convenience, here are the Amendments you'll be voting on if you live in Florida, along with an explanation in English of what they'll actually do, and my opinion on them, which you can take or leave as you like.


Amendment 1
Relating to Property Rights/Ineligible Aliens

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.

This non-controversial Amendment was put on the ballot by the Legislature. It proposes to remove some language dating back to the late 1800's from Florida's Constitution about Asian immigrants not being allowed to own land. Most other States had similar provisions at some point, which have of course been removed, and this is basically just housekeeping for the State.

My Vote: Yes, because this archaic wording is already superseded by reality everywhere in FL.


Amendment 2
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.

This Amendment is fairly straightforward, and most people already have an idea of where they come down on gay marriage. It's worth noting that this is already effectively the reality in FL, the purpose of this Amendment is to make it much more difficult for future groups to propose changes to the law that would give same-sex couples more rights. The Amendment was proposed by a group that opposes gay rights.

My Vote: No, because I don't believe this needs to be in our Constitution, when it is at best a matter of personal preference, and at worst a blatant attempt to block people's rights. I don't believe in legislating what goes on in the bedroom, and I think same-sex couples are our Constitutional and Human equals, and should be treated with the same respect as other couples.


Amendment 3
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.

Huh? OK, this Amendment basically means the following: If you install home-hardening features like storm shutters, hurricane glass, etc, OR renewable energy features like solar panels, wind-gathering devices etc, the Property Tax assessment for your home would not factor these types of improvements into your home's value, and by extension your owed tax. Basically, it's an incentive to get people to install this stuff, because they won't incur a tax penalty if they do so.

My Vote: Yes. I like renewable energy, and part of the "Green Collar" job creation plan involves creating a bigger market for this stuff, creating jobs for installers, manufacturers, etc. I'm for anything that incentivises that. Plus: Lower taxes, and lower insurance premiums for storm features. All around win.


Amendment 4
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.

This is an environmental measure. It would lock in property tax exemptions for privately-held land being used for conservation purposes, and prevent future tax assessments on conservation areas from being based on "Best possible use," and keep them based on "Current use." Example: Say you've got a beach that's a designated conservation area. Now, from one extreme to the other; this land could be taxed at the rate that it would bring in if there were Condos on it, or it could be exempt from taxation at all, provided that it will be used as a conservation area permanently.

My Vote: Yes. I'm all for keeping Conservation areas undeveloped.


Amendment 6
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.

This is similar to the last Amendment, but deals with waterfront use. It would lock in taxes on "Working Waterfront" areas at rates based on their current use, rather than what their potential tax could be. For example, a marina with a few commercial fishing boats and various other uses would be locked in at the rate for those services, not what the potential tax revenue would be if you bulldozed them and built multi-million dollar yacht condos.

My Vote: Yes. Have you been down by Tin City lately? Two of my favorite local businesses and countless others were eliminated by the crazy taxes down there, torn down, and replaced by condos, most of which now sit empty, collecting no tax at all. I come from a long line of boat builders and fishermen, and this will protect real Floridians' livelihoods.


Amendment 8
Local Option Community 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.

This Amendment would authorize local governments to raise sales taxes to supplement local Community College funding. Pretty straightforward.

My Vote: Yes. If we're going to have these services, we need to pay for them somehow, and I don't mind kicking in a little more to support education.


And that's it. I realize it's a lot to digest, but these are important measures, it's vital you understand what you're voting on. I'll be re-posting this as we get closer to the Election, but you may want to print it out for future reading, if you find it helpful. Your thoughts are welcome below, and please remember to vote early, request an absentee ballot and use it. It helps your chosen candidate, whoever they might be, and it makes your life easier, allowing you to sit down and research local candidates and issues like these.

John Adams Doctor Atomic

opens October 13th at The Met.

From Alex Ross' fine blog:

Thanks to a generous $500,000 donation, the house is offering a slew of prime orchestra seats for $30 as part of its Rush Ticket program.

If you're anywhere near NYC, you should try to see this.

And this critique of the McCain campaign.....

is brought to you by our dear friend, Jordan C. Clark, who writes:

McCain's campaign has consistently seemed to rely on a warped philosophy that suggests that the truth is less important than what people are willing to believe.

The insulting fact of the way they've run the campaign is simple.

They banked on a majority of Americans to be the Fox News audience who trust and buy into the "spin-free zones" and empty polls, or choose the least articulate liberals to defend valid perspectives against any member of the right-wing elite willing to appear.

They lie, or, at the very least, mislead the public and the reach they have is stunning, but they gambled on a majority that just isn't there. Unfortunately for them, there are a fair number of Republicans with analytical, critically-thinking minds, who are not fooled by the same sources over and over again.

Perhaps, of the unthinking masses, this may be true, but in supposing that the dumbest sector of their voting base made up enough of a majority that they could win the election with only their votes, they abandoned the most valuable, thinking members of their party. (Example: George Will)

Maybe there is more to it.

If the candidate were able to back himself up, make a real case, then maybe he would have been able to win the intelligent republicans by speaking articulately, clearly communicating his strengths as a candidate. Instead, his opportunities to face off with Obama have been squandered with vague responses when he should have offered clarity, attacks where he should have tooted his own horn, and condescension when he should have been respectful. If his strength isn't policy, but rather his honorable character, then he should have worked harder at being more charismatic and less insulting, both to his opponent, and, in this longed-for town hall format, to those asking questions ("You probably never even heard of Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac before two weeks ago!")

McCain was vague and avoided questions, but wasted plenty of Tom Brokaw's time with condescending quips directed at question-askers and "that one."
Obama, on the other hand, directly and articulately addressed people's questions, like what the "Rescue Plan" (yeah, okay, sure) did for regular Americans, and why it was necessary. McCain didn't do that - he just pointed fingers and said that he had mentioned Fannie and Freddy two years ago, even though as recently as this spring, he was touting deregulation policies.

Another insult to the general public was his bet than the undecided women, following Hillary's loss in the primary, could be con over with another female on a ticket - any ticket, even one that favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the taxation of health insurance such that anyone with a comprehensive policy actually pays more money, drilling for oil when that is obviously not the way of the future, and as American innovation is falling behind in the changing scope of the global economy. (Did ANYONE read PART of Zakaria's book???)

Proposing a moratorium on spending, excepting Defense and Veteran's Affairs is maybe the WORST idea ever, since so many domestic programs are at or beyond the brink of failure. But maybe for a candidate who banks on ignorant voters, education shouldn't be a priority. Welfare? Who needs it! If the people who needed it actually got it, then it would only extend their life expectancies, granting them the opportunity to elect more Democrats. If they didn't get it, then they'd starve, die sickly and depressing, lonely deaths, and decrease the blue to red ratio on the maps, simultaneously decreasing the demand for said programs. Social Security? People today won't ever reach retirement anyway. In the economy post-crisis, they'll be working until they die. Besides, by the time we reform that program, generations who could actually see the benefits will never have even heard of such a thing. By then they won't even know it ever existed.

But maybe McCain's campaign hasn't been all wrong. Maybe they simply assumed that even though they were insulting the intelligent members of their party's base, they could count on those votes anyway, because the thinkingest Republican brains could be trusted not to vote for Obama's policies, just because they didn't like McCain. They'll still support McCain before they'd vote for Obama, for gosh sakes.

McCain's "maverick" reputation has thwarted fundamental Republican initiatives in the past, and his hasty decision-making has been a real head-scratcher. Barack Obama has shown a skill for being an inspiring and mobilizing force on both sides of the aisle. Maybe the intelligent Republicans can say, in the face of W's imminent departure from the White House, "No, it's time for intelligence, and it's time to do something that the country can be proud of." Maybe it will all be okay, and maybe McCain's biggest mistake was assuming the worst of the American voters. If he turns out to have been right in this gamble he's made, and enough American voters really are that thoughtless (and stupid), I fear for the future of this country, because with a McCain administration, education won't get the reform it needs, and Americans will never get smart enough to think critically about what's being said to them.

The Debate on Russia tonight

Jesus. I....I really can't respond. It is so unbelievably discouraging to have the level of discourse in this country on such a monumentally important foreign policy question as Russia be so unbelievably entrenched in decades-old, dichotomous ideals disproved in the past two decades.

Why? Why are we resurrecting the Evil Empire meme? I hope that this idiotic back and forth doesn't lead me to be so hungover tomorrow that I can't point out how stupid LEAGUE OF DEMOCRACY and rambling "I can't really say that Russia is evil, but I think they are because you folk think they are" really is as a talking point.

I really don't know where to begin. This debate is ridiculous.