• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,134
575
61
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
The pig ammendment prevented an industry that produces large amounts of hazardous waste, and that is generally not well regulated compared to other types of haz-mat producing industries from setting up shop in the state.

If the Carolinas or Iowa want to deal with the kinds of problems assocaited with that type of farming, then, hey, farmland for that type of hog production is probably cheaper there anyways.

Here is the amendment:
Florida Animal Cruelty Amendment: Limiting Cruel and Inhumane Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy
Citation: Florida Amendment Article X Section 19
Summary:
This ballot proposal addresses the inhumane treatment of animals, specifically, pregnant pigs. To prevent cruelty to animals and as recommended by The Humane Society of the United States, no person shall confine a pig during pregnancy in a cage, crate or other enclosure, or tether a pregnant pig, on a farm so that the pig is prevented from turning around freely, except for veterinary purposes and during the prebirthing period; provides definitions, penalties, and an effective date.



How in the world does this shut down pig production in Florida? Granted it was inhumane. My understanding is it was a practice done by one large operation in central Florida that stopped voluntarily when it received media attention. I would think we should be more concerned about phosphate mining if we are going to worry about water pollution. But back to unintended consequences. This amendment was used to get the voters to pass the 60% initiative, which now makes it harder for citizens to get something added to the constitution.
 

Andy A

Beach Fanatic
Feb 28, 2007
4,389
1,738
Blue Mountain Beach
Back to the point I was originally trying to make. Why can't we do these kind of things through legislation? Much as I hate to say it, probably because the legislature as a whole is smarter and better informed than the general populace. Amending the constitution should be saved for more important things than pregnant pigs. WaltonGOP makes a good point about the 60% rule. Before that passed, as I remember, a simple majority could amend the constitution. A pure and simple disaster!
 

TreeFrog

Beach Fanatic
Oct 11, 2005
1,798
212
Seagrove
Two no votes from Casa Frog.

Call me cynical, but I'm tired of being asked to accept this stuff that's being passed off to us as a good idea - by policiticians who are more interested in getting reelected than they are in the hard and politically risky business of tackling tough issues in a way that works in the public's long-term interest. Give us some statesmen and a little tough love, and we'll see real improvements for everyone, rather than pandering to special interests.
 

Bob

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2004
10,364
1,391
O'Wal
SOH should never have been passed in the first place, but it did because of greed and the 50 percent threshold. No one has a firm grip on the "fix". Of all the posters here, who has recommended getting rid of the source of the problem? You folks are arguing over minutiae that won't change the source of the problem. It's not government in this case...it's bad law.
 

TooFarTampa

SoWal Insider
Back to the point I was originally trying to make. Why can't we do these kind of things through legislation? Much as I hate to say it, probably because the legislature as a whole is smarter and better informed than the general populace. Amending the constitution should be saved for more important things than pregnant pigs. WaltonGOP makes a good point about the 60% rule. Before that passed, as I remember, a simple majority could amend the constitution. A pure and simple disaster!

Funny how the amendment about amendments passed with less than 60 percent! :rotfl:

Regarding your main point, here is a nice summation from Howard Troxler, my personal guru of Reason and Sanity:

"On the question of elections -- anything that changes the way property is taxed at less than full value (homestead exemption, Save Our Homes, etc.) has to be changed in our Constitution. But any kind of cap on millages, etc. could possibly be done by statute without an election, as were the millage rollback and prospecive caps passed last spring."
 

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,134
575
61
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
SOH should never have been passed in the first place, but it did because of greed and the 50 percent threshold. No one has a firm grip on the "fix". Of all the posters here, who has recommended getting rid of the source of the problem? You folks are arguing over minutiae that won't change the source of the problem. It's not government in this case...it's bad law.



OKAY! Let's get rid of SOH. I am all for it. Total fairness in the tax system where we all pay on the values. Young, old, students, seniors, widowers, veterans. Let us make it totally fair.

Now let me know just how the heck you would get something like that passed. Ain't gonna happen. Maybe that is why no one is discussing that as a possible fix.
 

tiredtaxpayer

Beach Crab
Oct 18, 2007
3
0
Not one of you supports the elimination of SOH. It's bad law, because it benefits an entitled class. All of this back and forth on voting no or yes is window dressing hiding your own greed.

Now this type of talk just burns my a**!!

My greed huh?? You think wanting some of my money back from a goverment that STEALS from you in the first place is a bad idea?? I work in south Walton and live in South Walton in a house that has lost 400,000 dollars in equity the last two years and you don't think I deserve a little relief from those freaking ninnies in Gov'Mint?

If you got too much disposible cash I advise you to go down on 30A and start handing it out. I for one DO NOT put all of my trust in "so called" officals I continue to see WASTE our hard earned dollars on foolish pet projects that benefit few...a few examples you say???

----$260,000 [and growing] in signs that tell you, your are--- where you are.

-----275,000 for cross walks that don't work.


-----The Greenway Trail winds around South Walton High School and neighboring areas.

The county paid $650,000 for the trail, which has been in the works since 1999 but was delayed because of legal issues dealing with the county?s property around the South Walton Courthouse Annex, Meadows said.

And a multitude of others AND I STILL DON'T HAVE A DECENT PLAYGROUND FOR MY KIDS.

VOTE YES IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
 

JustaLocal

Beach Fanatic
Jul 11, 2007
447
49
SRB
SOH should never have been passed in the first place, but it did because of greed and the 50 percent threshold. No one has a firm grip on the "fix". Of all the posters here, who has recommended getting rid of the source of the problem? You folks are arguing over minutiae that won't change the source of the problem. It's not government in this case...it's bad law.

I disagree with you.
 

raven

Banned
May 14, 2007
130
0
Here's an article from Tampa with another slant:

Better than nothing; is that good enough?
By HOWARD TROXLER
Published January 3, 2008

Maybe you are thinking:

"Thank goodness that the holidays are over! Now I can turn my full attention to figuring out this property tax thing on the Jan. 29 ballot."

Hey, that's just what I was thinking, too! This is a big decision. So, let's take a look.

Amendment 1 would do four things:

(1) It would increase Florida's "homestead" tax exemption. The way it works now, we don't tax the first $25,000 of a home's value. The new total tax break would vary, but a typical figure is $40,000.

(2) The amendment also would change the rules for the "Save Our Homes" tax break for homesteads. The tax break would become "portable," or transferable to a new home.

(3) Businesses would get a little help as well, a tax exemption for their first $25,000 of tangible personal property.

(4) All nonhomestead property also would get a cap of 10 percent a year on how fast its taxable value could go up. That's not as good as the 3 percent cap homeowners have, but it's better than the double-digit jumps of recent years.

Now to the pros and cons.

Before we go through the reasons to vote against it, be sure to remember the really good reasons to vote for it.

Hey, look, it's a tax cut. Millions of Floridians will get a bigger break. Nonhomestead property, including businesses, will get a little help, and protection against future double-digit hikes.

Maybe we should do other reform later, according to this line of argument. But at least Amendment 1 is a start.

As a second reason for voting yes, some people hope the "portable" tax break under Save Our Homes will help the real estate market, since people no longer have to stay in their old home to keep their tax break.

Now, for some of the arguments against Amendment 1:

It gives the most help to homeowners, who already get the best tax break, and it gives the least help to those who need it most.

It doesn't fix the underlying unfairness in Florida's tax structure.

It doesn't reverse any of the big local government tax increases of recent years.

It gives the average homeowner an insultingly small break, a couple of hundred bucks a year.

It doesn't do enough for business.

It might even make future tax reform harder to pass.

It would require even deeper cuts in local services, in exchange for a fairly small savings for the typical taxpayer.

Whew! That is a lot of criticism. But even if it all is true, there's still the "better than nothing" argument.

My own thinking is that the Legislature took the easy way out with Amendment 1.

Instead of a thoughtful, coherent reform, the Legislature held a quick three-day session in October, threw in a higher tax break for homeowners, stuck on a couple of sops to business, and called it quits. This is a shallow way to run the state.

If you like the arguments for voting yes, and you agree that this is better than nothing, then go right ahead, and I will cheer for you.

But me, I kinda hope the voters shoot it down and tell the Legislature: Try again, and do it better.

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

By the way, Charlie would like you to give $10 to help foot the bill to advertise 'your' tax cut: http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/03/images/yeson1.pdf

Apparently he didn't get enough from his NYC $1,000-a-person fundraiser hosted by Donald Trump. :roll:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20071208/NEWS/712080390/1004


.

they really think we're schmucks don't they? pay no attention to the man behind the curtain............
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter