Florida Ballot Amendments 2010: The Quickening

Welcome back to another installment of "We're Voting For WHAT This November?"

Linkage here to official descriptives of the amendments on the state ballot.  Linkage here to reviews, comments and truth-verification on the amendment debates.

Shall we peruse the list?  ...Peruse.  It's an SAT word.  Means "to read."  Sigh...

Amendment One: Campaign Finance Requirement Repeal.
Pretty straightfoward: It calls for a repeal of the public financing of statewide candidates who agree to spending limits.  What does it mean?
It means that, with public financing gone, any candidates for state office will become more ensnared by the need for campaigning and raising funds that will be offered up by deep pocket lobbyist groups and individual millionaires.  A more sensible approach would be to follow other reforms that would reduce outside influences of the lobbies, but hey I'm not able to bribe my local officials with $50,000 of funding so I'm just jealous of those who can.
I'd vote: Against the repeal.  It's not the solution to campaign reform we need.

Amendment Two: Military Assisted Homestead Property Tax.
This amendment creates a homestead property tax exemption to members of the United States military and  reservists who receive a Homestead exemption and who were deployed in on active duty outside the United States.  Basically, anyone who owns a house/property in Florida that gets Homesteaded and was serving in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other tour of duty on foreign soil gets a bigger exemption.
This is kind of a no-brainer: military service is one of the Big Things a good citizen does for their country.  But a lot of the soldiers and personnel who do serve have problems paying the bills just like the rest of us (some even moreso as a lot of soldiers are volunteering from low-income lives).  Giving them a tax break on home ownership can help relieve some of the pressure on our current housing woes.
I'd vote: For the Homestead exemption for the Military.  I'm not alone.  This is polling at 71 percent approval (like I said, no-brainer).

Amendment Three: Removed by court order.
It would have created bigger tax exemptions for first-time home buyers and for certain types of business properties.  People argued it would have created too many tax breaks during budgetary crises at the state, county and city levels and would have forced counties/cities to hike existing rates to unreasonable levels on those who wouldn't be covered by this amendment.
Personally, some tax breaks - like Amendment Two's - make sense.  Others don't.  This one didn't, and Thank God it's off the table.  (Note: I would not have been protected from this Homestead exemption and most likely would have seen property taxes on my place go up by 20 percent or more if this had passed).

Amendment Four: Comprehensive Land Use Plans.
Hoo boy.  This one's messy.  This one requires voter approval of any changes to local (city/county) growth-management plans.  Also known as Comprehensive plans, they're blueprints of how cities and counties plan ahead on how the communities will look (suburban neighborhood here, shopping mall there, 6-lane highway over that way, etc.).
This amendment came about because Florida has a terrible track record of sticking to any eco-friendly or sensible growth-management plans.  Businesses and developers have pretty much free reign in dealing with local governments to get their way: as a result, Florida is one of several states that overplanned suburban and condo developments.  Since the housing collapse of 2007 to current, there are virtual open lots of planned neighborhoods where nothing's been built other than unused driveways and street lamps.  (Note: I live in Pasco: I've counted about two undeveloped areas up towards Hudson, one out towards Land O' Lakes, and one huge undeveloped neighborhood south of Zephyrhills).
Arguing for this amendment, supporters claim the elected officials in charge of the growth-development too often ignore voters, and the rules for halting unplanned growth don't work. This amendment is their solution: Give residents the power to decide where and how the cities/counties will grow.
Opponents highlight that some communities already allow local residents direct vote on the plans: they also point out those communities cope with constant lawsuits fighting over the votes.  Another problem is that voters, Bless them, aren't fully informed about the benefits or detriments of any plan: after all, most of us are NOT architects or land-use experts, nor do most of us don't have business savvy to see how land could be effectively used.  For all we know, a good plan would get attacked with flimsy arguments and fall to voter ignorance: a bad plan would get sold by snake-oil salesmen and get passed that would later prove a disaster for the community left paying the bills.
I'd vote: Against this.  This one is tricky.  I hate how the developers have shredded half this state to build their fancy condos and neighborhoods.  However, I don't trust the overall common sense of the voters (these are the same idiots who voted for Rick Scott KNOWN TO HAVE COMMITTED MEDICARE FRAUD), and I fear if this passes the developers will find a way to twist this amendment to their advantage.  There's got to be a better way to end overdevelopment.  This isn't it.

Amendment Five: Fair District Boundaries - Legislative
and
Amendment Six: Fair District Boundaries - Congressional
These are a one-two amendment punch to the horrific gerrymandering that our state government commits every ten years to draw the state and federal congressional districts.  See, the party in charge tends to draw the districts that favor their party and their incumbents: they design districts that show a decent majority of registered voters to their party and as many of those districts as they can (example: creating fifteen Republican districts that have +2 advantages for the GOP in each district while creating three Democratic districts of +20 advantages where there were too many Democrats to feasibly carve out a Republican district).  In order to create these districts, the party in charge ignores basic boundaries such as city limits, county borders, and geographic edges such as rivers and lakes.  As a result, you can get a state Senate district that stretches between three counties and include voters that may actually conflict with each other over agriculture, schools, and development-growth.  The only uniting factor?  The majority of voters there will all vote for anyone with a (Republican) in brackets behind the name.  The final result?  Unstoppable incumbents of a political party that falsely creates a majority in office and can ignore ("The voters never notice, they just vote!") the actual needs of the citizenry.
Hence these voter-approved amendments.  They will force the state government to create voting districts for the State lege and the U.S. Congress so that the districts are equal by population density ONLY and will follow city/county and geographic borders.  There are considerations for minority representation, but the odds are if they go by population density - read urban centers - there will be enough districts for Black and Hispanic representation to fulfill civil rights obligations. 
The State lege was so terrified of these amendments passing that they attempted to insert Amendment Seven as a means to override both these if they passed.  More on that in the next entry.  Suffice to say, the powers-that-be don't like these two amendments: the PERFECT reason to VOTE FOR THEM.
I'd Vote: For both Amendment 5 AND 6.  They are both fair and just: we live in a state with 1-million MORE registered Democrats, but thanks to a Republican-controlled State legislature the districts have been drawn to favor the Republicans.  There's not even any district that's majority-No Party affiliate: I'm hoping that in districts drawn up by these amendments we can actually get a district that favors neither major party!  BWHAHAHAHAHA!  Better still, these amendments will make it harder for incumbents to dictate their favorable districts, albeit the changes that come every 10 years.  Still, anything that shakes up the incumbency is a good thing: you bastards gotta WORK for your votes...

Amendment Seven: Poison-Pill Redistricting Amendment.  Which thankfully got booted by court order.
Mentioned earlier, this was a State legislature-approved amendment designed to counter the amendments Five and Six.  While the wording of this amendment sounded similar to those other two amendments (saying that districts will not be drawn for party bias), this amendment allowed for districts to be drawn "for communities of common interest."  And what common interests would those be?  Mostly based on party platforms, a loophole to sneak in gerrymandered districts based on "common interest" and not on the needs and realities of actually communities like cities and counties.  The wording of the amendment also allowed it to trump any redistricting requirements in case either Amendments Five or Six passed.
The amendment quickly got challenged in court, where the judge noted it was confusing and held hidden objectives.  It got to the State Supreme Court where they ruled it would also counter current requirements that districts be "contiguous".  The legal system basically said it was a poorly-written and confusing law.  Neener.

Amendment Eight: Florida Class Size
Ah, the issue that won't die.  This amendment is an attempt to repeal a previous state amendment that forced school districts to cap classroom sizes to certain student counts: 18 elementary, 22 middle schoolers, 25 high schoolers.  This would end that and allow schools to set classrooms by average student counts by grade level per district (although it allows for higher caps (21, 27, 30)).  There are funding issues as well.
The short of it: implementing the classroom size limits forced districts to A) hire more teachers and support staff, B) build more schools or add on more portable classrooms, C) really hate the state voters for passing that amendment in 2002.  Given the tight budgeting problems this state's had this past decade, I would sympathize.
The proponents of this amendment claim that a study done on the state showed there's been no discernible improvement in student performances since the class limits were put in place.  Those defending the class limits point out the study was funded by a committee that has Jeb "Kill Tenure" Bush on its board.  This argument quickly falls into the He Said / He Said bickering, so lets try looking at the numbers instead.
The St. Pete Times examined the costs of this new amendment and found that by giving more flexibility with classroom sizes this could save the state $1 billion out of the $16 billion the current amendment supposedly spends.  Question there I have is, will that $1 billion still go to the schools to help fund other necessary reforms such as upgraded schools, pay performance improvements, and programs designed to help struggling kids stay in school for their degrees?
I'd Vote: This is tricky for me.  My mom was a teacher: based on her experiences griping about teaching the kids, I'd come to the conclusion that classroom sizes did make a difference.  A room of 33-40 kids sounded harder to reach than a room full of 25 kids.  There is no evidence I can find that quantity affects quality of education either way.  If there is anything with the class limit, it forces schools to hire more unqualified "teachers" than usual... but that could be countered by improving the degree programs at the state universities and colleges.  The biggest problem the schools face involve keeping the kids IN school, as well as actually getting them solid educations (the current obsession with FCAT exams are making these kids good at testing but NOT at learning or application of learning).  There's more to our education reform needs than just classroom size.  I'd have to vote against this: the state ought to look at other reforms first.

Amendment Nine: Removed by court order.
This was an amendment submitted by the Republican-controlled Legislature to override Obama's Health Care Reform bill.  The courts ruled the language in the amendment was misleading, confusing, and gave off an unpleasant odor (okay, I threw in that last bit, but trust me this thing had a partisan stench to it).

Advisory: On a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment.
This is new.  I don't recall ever voting for a non-binding referendum before.
This is merely a "question" that would be passed on to the federal level: asking Congress to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a Balanced Budget.
My personal views on this need re-stating.  In theory I like the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment.  In practice I find the Balanced Budget Amendment is being pushed by a political party - the Republicans - who have proved on their own to be unable to stick to a balanced budget in any way shape or form.  I find that when the Republicans WERE in charge of the budget - the Bush the Lesser years between 2001 to 2006 - they spent our money like drunken teenagers with their parents' credit cards and NOT ONCE during that time did they even bring a Balanced Budget Amendment up for even a committee vote.  And now?  Now that the Democrats are in charge trying to fix the massive deficits the Republicans created... NOW the GOP wants a Balanced Budget Amendment.  The hypocrisy of it reeks!
What's worse, the Republicans' definition of "Balanced Budget" usually reads as "No taxes to pay for costs, and Cut everything we don't like."  It's their excuse to purge every social-oriented funded program - Food stamps, Unemployment benefits, Education block grants, even Social Security and Medicare - on the books.  Never mind the fact that the Republicans' plan would literally kill millions of Americans via starvation, lack of shelter, what have you.  Anything for their goddamn precious tax cuts.
I'd Vote: No on this.  Out of pure survival.  The last thing we need is any state being on record supporting a "Balanced Budget Amendment" platform that would honestly cause more damage than we need.  If I support anything it's this "Pay-Go" practice of justifying every government expense dollar-to-dollar (or close to) from existing or found revenue.  It's more a stop-gap procedure but it's better than the "Let's Balance the Budget on the Backs of the Broken" bull.

So, there you have it.  The ballot proposals for the state of Florida, 2010.  All comments to be directed below on the link that says "Leave Comment."  Or "Make a Comment."  Or "Hey!  Prove You Read This Blog By Making an Inane Comment Here!"