I Survived Hurricane Irma With This Realization

Either we need to upgrade our electrical grid so that we NEVER lose power in any community; or we push our engineering industry to develop a durable, reliable solar-powered air conditioning system that will keep us Floridians chill while we recover from passing storms.

The woman who invents that solar-powered air conditioner becomes a GODDESS in the state of Florida, I kid you not.

Florida Ballot Amendments 2016: Four More Reasons to Show Up AND VOTE, PEOPLE

Welcome back to yet another ANOTHER installment - it's 2016 the Year of Celebrity Deaths - of "Florida's Voting For WHAT This November?"

This is primarily focusing on the state amendments on the ballot, that if passed by more than 60 percent of the vote get incorporated into the state's constitution. There's two types: ballot initiatives from the citizenry and legislative initiatives from Tall Hassle Tallahassee. So it's imperative to review who's backing what and determine whether or not Florida will actually benefit from the proposal.

This DOES NOT include any review of the Pasco Mosquito Control Board seats, I'll post something about the candidate votes later.

All links bounce to the Ballotpedia site:

Amendment 1: Solar Use and Subsidies

This citizens-based amendment basically lets Florida residents produce their own solar energy - through buying or leasing equipment - if they choose. It also allows state and local governments to "protect" those who won't produce solar energy from being required to subsidize any solar energy generation.

It's that second part that bothers me. It's worded to where it would grant the state or county or city governments the power to block any solar energy plans that would - and usually DOES - require subsidizing (i.e., funds from other resources). It can grant a government agency representing something - like, oh, a regional utility company - the power to force all leasing or purchasing of solar equipment from just that one utility (who can then charge exorbitant fees). The opponents arguing against this ballot measure are pointing out how this actually creates an expensive, state-backed monopoly on energy alternatives. 

It's clear when you look at the ballot-backer - a PAC called "Consumers for Smart Solar" - gets funds from major utilities like Duke Energy that the people looking to profit from this amendment's passage are NOT doing so in the people's best interests. I'd actually vote NO against this measure and wait for something better to show.

Amendment 2: Medical Marijuana

Again.

The previous attempt at passing a medical marijuana amendment in 2014 barely missed the 60 percent cutoff, so the bill's backers are hoping a strong turnout this cycle - when there's a Presidential election on the line - will bring in enough voters to break that barrier.

The arguments basically remain the same. Proponents view this as a sensible means of granting licensed doctors the power to help pain relief and other medical disorders that can be treated with marijuana. Opponents just hate pot and fear this will open up to recreational drug abuse.

The amendment makes it clear this grants DOCTORS the power to proscribe the drug - much like they could for any other pharmaceutical - and still reflect on the federal guideline that puts Marijuana under a restrictive Class I status.

What I said back in 2014 is what I'll say today:

I'm not a drug user.  I don't use marijuana (although I've known people who have).  I don't smoke nicotine cigarettes (which is more lethal than marijuana yet regulated by the feds).  I don't drink any alcohol, not even wine (again, in excess alcohol can be lethal, yet is still regulated by the feds).  I don't want to see any substance abuse of any kind for kids under 18 (in alcohol's case, the age limit is 21).  These are personal preferences for me.  Yet I don't see the severe harm of marijuana.  The death rate from pot overdose is non-existent: the amount of ingested THC (the chemical that makes marijuana the weed we know today) needed to overdose is thousands of times higher than the regular rate of ingestion.  Nearly every pot smoker just smokes one a day: it would take 20,000 of those rolls in one sitting to kill one smoker.  Even pot brownies - arguably more potent - doesn't have enough THC in it to cause death (diabetes, though...)

This is an amendment worth passing. I'm giving this a huge thumbs up YES.

Amendment 3: Tax Exemptions for Disabled First Responders

This is one of those legislative-backed amendments that the Far Right Republicans want to push as a means of tax-cutting without actually get held accountable for tax-cutting.

It's specifically for "First Responders, totally and permanently disabled as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty, to receive relief from ad valorem taxes assessed on homestead property." It adds onto the existing Homestead Exemption, I would figure, and would reduce the amount of state and county/municipal taxes raised on residential property.

It doesn't provide tax relief to a lot of people - just the firefighters, cops, medics, or other emergency personnel - disabled/injured in the line of duty. So it doesn't benefit many and it doesn't cut back on a lot of tax revenues, so it's barely beneficial AND barely harmful. There's almost no argument for or against this amendment, which makes it almost neutral in terms of political partisanship. I'm still not a fan of these exemption amendments, so I'd vote No. I'd actually consider a broader-based amendment that would prove more beneficial to more people. I'll expect it to pass simply because enough Floridians won't see the harm in this amendment much like the other exemption amendments they passed in previous years.

Amendment 4: Tax Exemptions for Solar Panels

This already passed: for some reason it was put on the August primary ballot rather than the general election, and garnered about 72 percent of the vote. So... moot point.

Amendment 5: Tax Exemptions for Senior Citizens

Another legislative-backed deal, this one specifically geared for seniors with "homes valued at less than $250,000 owned by individuals over the age of 65 who have lived in the home for at least 25 years. The exemptions would also be available to permanently disabled veterans aged 65 or older and surviving spouses of veterans, or First Responders who died in the line of duty. Seniors would be able to keep their tax exemption even if their home value exceeded $250,000 in the future."

It does have a cutoff for houses worth more than $250,000 which tends to be the average market rate for a 3-4 bedroom homes with garages and indoor plumbing.

It's one of those fluffy-feed-good amendments that make it difficult to contest. Arguably you need to give seniors tax breaks as they're on fixed incomes in retirement, and they do need to afford living in their homes they've owned for ages. My problem with this amendment is that it grandfathers in (pun unavoidable) any homeowner whose property value DOES go up in the foreseeable future. Once it's exempt it's for the life of the homeowner(s). Which could dramatically affect county or city or school board tax collections for much-needed revenues.

Again, I'd argue No on this amendment because it's another questionable attempt to restrict agencies from any revenues to, you know, pay for things while benefiting just a select few residents. Granted, it's not benefiting the uber-rich homeowners, it's just one more paper cut by the Republicans against the state.

So that's my review of the amendments. Yes on 2, No on 1 and No on 3 and No on 5.

Also, a big No on Rick "Medicare Fraud" Scott, just because it needs saying.

Thank ye.

Florida Ballot Time, 2016 Edition: The Primary Vote, With an Amendment On the Line

Normally I don't promote the statewide primary balloting information because it's mostly just the partisan, intraparty votes for legislative seats, or else votes for School Board and judicial seats that require paying attention to the local newspapers for recommendations.

This year is a little different, because this 2016 our state placed an Amendment referendum on the Primary ballot and not the General Election one. Oddly, it's a Legislatively-approved amendment... so there's possibly some kind of trickery involved here because we can't trust this Republican-led state lege on anything... so let's take a look at this:

Amendment Four: Solar Energy Tax Exemptions

The ballot summary should read like this:

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law, to exempt from ad valorem taxation the assessed value of solar or renewable energy source devices subject to tangible personal property tax, and to authorize the Legislature, by general law, to prohibit consideration of such devices in assessing the value of real property for ad valorem taxation purposes. This amendment takes effect January 1, 2018, and expires on December 31, 2037

It's odd to get an amendment to the state's constitution with an expiration date, for one. My layman's interpretation of the wording is that solar/renewable energy devices will be exempt from property values for tax calculations.

The link I have to Ballotpedia's entry on the amendment shows a lot of strong support for it even among political leaders and organizations that would be in favor of solar and renewable energy. There's another Amendment up for vote this November - Amendment One - which focuses more on the individual right to own/lease your own solar energy equipment, so I don't see Four conflicting with One in any way. So in some respects - even in the form of tax cutting - this might be a good amendment. I just can't come to terms with this state's GOP legislature actually doing something... well, sane and positive. I'd be voting YES on this. But... but... there's gotta be a catch to this, right...?

In all other things, this statewide primary is pretty much a standard, let's-get-our-ducks-in-a-row local vote to choose the final candidates for the General election battle.

The official primary is Tuesday August 30, with Early Voting set for Saturday August 20 through Saturday August 27.

There's no default statewide ballot to refer to since local elections and state districts make it painful to list every one, so it's best to find the County's Supervisor of Elections site for the area in which you live for more details.

Now that I live in Polk County, look here for the Republican ballot, this for the Democratic ballot, this one's the Libertarian ballot... hey, wait, they get their own this time? Ah, they have a contest for the US Senator slot. And here's the one I'll be getting as a No-Party Affiliate.

Just for those old-timers who read me back when I covered Pasco County, here's the appropriate links for you. You have to figure out your precinct first, then select the appropriate ballot. If we went by my old haunts, it'd be this ballot for me. You may note the Pasco County Mosquito Control Board is not listed for this election: you will have to wait for the General election in November to CHOOSE YOUR MOSQUITO CONTROLLERS.

Just remember, fellow Floridians: GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT. I don't care if it's the primary: we get another weak showing of 24 to 33 percent of all voters again, this will be our own damn fault if we don't get the candidates we need.